Books

Dr David Evans: Four fatal pieces of evidence

Dr David Evans lays out four crucial pieces of evidence, and calls for a debate with Prof Andrew Pitman. But the evidence is so unarguably strong for skeptics, we know that the name-calling-team-who-want-our-money will do anything to avoid a public debate. If the evidence is “overwhelming” why are they so unwilling to explain it? — Jo

—————–

Submission to the Inquiry into Carbon Tax Pricing Mechanisms

Dr David Evans

20 September 2011

Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, and part-time to the Department of Climate Change from 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University.

Global warming has become a scam. Let me explain how it works.

It has superficial plausibility. Yes, global warming is occurring. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and levels are rising. And yes, every molecule of carbon dioxide we emit causes some global warming.

Many non-scientists think that proves the case, but it doesn’t. In particular, it doesn’t rule out the possibility that carbon dioxide is merely a minor or insignificant player, and that something else is the main cause of global warming.

Here’s a clue: the world has been in a warming trend since 1680, the depth of the Little Ice Age. It has warmed steadily since then, at half a degree per century. Within the trend there is a pattern of 25 – 30 years of warming followed by 25 – 30 years of mild cooling. We just finished a warming period that started in 1975, so chances are we’ll have mild cooling for the next couple of decades. But there were no SUV’s in 1680. Human emissions of CO2 were miniscule before 1850, nearly all come after WWII, and a quarter since 1998. Yet the warming trend was as strong in the 1700s and 1800s as it was in the 1900s.

The theory of man-made global warming doesn’t stand up to even casual scrutiny. It requires believers to ignore or deny overwhelming evidence that it is bunk. The believers have to be schooled by massive propaganda not to notice certain things, and to ignore and revile anyone who points out those things.

There is in fact no empirical evidence that global warming is mainly man-made. If there was, we would have heard all about it. Tens of billions of dollars has been spent looking for it.

Climate scientists readily concede that there is no direct evidence that global warming is caused by our carbon dioxide. Instead, they say that our knowledge of how the climate works is embodied in their climate models, and the climate models say that global warming is man-made.

Models are logically equivalent to someone punching in numbers and doing sums on a calculator – models are calculations, not evidence. The problem is that the models contain many guesses and assumptions about how things work, and some of them are wrong.

Here are four bits of evidence that the climate models are fundamentally flawed

1 First, they have a track record of greatly exaggerating temperature increases. The global warming scare was started by James Hansen in his presentation to the US Congress in 1988, and comparing his predictions then to what actually occurred, the actual temperature rises are about a third of what he predicted. Remember, they have been saying the “science is settled” since the early 80’s, and the models now are essentially the same as they were then.

Furthermore, Hansen’s models predicted the temperature rise if human carbon dioxide emissions were cut back drastically starting in 1988, such that by year 2000 the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was not rising at all. But in reality, the temperature did not even rise that much. Which proves that the climate models don’t have a clue about the effect of carbon dioxide on world temperature.

Hansen 1988 Climate Model Predictions

2Second, the climate models predict the oceans should be warming. We’ve only been measuring ocean temperature properly since 2003, using the ARGO system. In ARGO, a buoy duck dives down to 2000m, slowly ascends and reads the temperatures on the way, then radios the result back by satellite to HQ. Three thousand ARGO buoys patrol the oceans constantly. They say that the ocean temperature since 2003 has been basically flat. Again, reality is very different to the climate models.

ARGO buoys measure the heat content of the top 700m of the worlds oceans.

3Third, the climate models predict a particular pattern of atmospheric warming during periods of global warming. In particular, the most prominent change they predict is a warming in the tropics about 10 km up, the so-called “hotspot”. But we have been measuring atmospheric temperatures by weather balloons since the 1960s, and millions of weather balloons say there was no such hotspot during the last warming from 1975 to 2001. The hotspot is integral to their theory, because it would be evidence of the extra evaporation and thickening of the water vapor blanket that produces two thirds of the warming in the climate models – the carbon dioxide itself produces only one third of the projected warming, but is amplified in the models by water vapor. But in reality there is no hotspot, so there is no amplification, which is why the climate models have exaggerated temperature increases.

The Climate models predict a hot spot that is entirely missing from radiosonde results.

Source of data: US Climate Change Science Program, 2006, part E of Figure 5.7, on page 116. Comes from millions of radiosondes (weather balloons) from the 1960s on. There is no other data for this period, and we cannot collect more data on atmospheric warming during global warming until global warming resumes. This is the only data there is.

Explanation: The hotspot in the models is due to a thickening of the water vapor blanket during global warming, as more water evaporates and the blanket of warm moist air displaces cold dry air above. This thickening causes 2/3 of the warming in the models. But in reality there is no hotspot, so the models exaggerate temperature increases by at least a factor of 3.

(By the way this became known by the mid-1990s, so the theory of man-made global warming should have been abandoned then, but there was too much money, bureaucracy, ideology, bank trading profits, and renewables action for the gravy train to be shut down.)

4Fourth, satellites have measured the outgoing radiation from the earth and found that the earth gives off more heat when the surface is warmer, and less heat in months when the earth’s surface is cooler. Who could have guessed? But the climate models say the opposite, that the Earth gives off less heat when the surface is warmer, because they trap heat too aggressively (positive feedback). Again, the climate models are violently at odds with reality.

Outgoing radiation from earth (vertical) against sea surface temperature (horizontal), as measured by the ERBE satellite (upper left) and as “predicted” by 11 climate models (the other graphs). Source: Lindzen and Choi 2009, Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 36

Those are four independent pieces of evidence that the climate models are fundamentally flawed. Anyone one of them, by itself, disproves the theory of man-made global warming. There are also other, more complex, pieces of evidence. Remember, there is no direct evidence that man causes global warming, so if the climate models are wrong then so is the theory.

Now let me explain how they prevent the scam from being revealed

The trick is that they never put any alarmist climate scientist in a position where they have to answer to a knowledgeable critic.

To defend their theory in public, the alarmist climate scientists typically send out people like Tim Flannery or Tony Jones who know next to nothing about how climate models work. Then, when confronted with evidence, these believers immediately just say “but the climate scientists say”. They argue from authority. It has the same structure as the celebrated argument between Galileo and the Pope – evidence on one side, and massive political and religious authority on the other. Note that the Pope had “scientists” on his side too, in fact the overwhelming majority, and they were “the consensus”. It’s easy to manufacture a consensus with that much money and power.

Alarmist climate scientists do make public appearances, but never in a situation where they come under sustained questioning or criticism from anyone who understands models. They have avoided any real debate in public for decades – these alarmists have never been held accountable, they’ve never had to answer to people who knew the problems with their theory. They have never faced an audit, an inquiry, a Royal Commission, or even a hostile interview – yet they get paid megabucks and presume to tell the rest of us how to live our lives.

The alarmist government climate scientists say they only respond to what is in the peer-reviewed journals. But that cover was memorably blown in the ClimateGate scandal of 2009, which revealed in their own words that they rig the journals to prevent publication of anything critical. That’s why they go on and on about peer-review – it’s their mechanism for keeping out criticism.

The climate scientists and their believer acolytes, by the way, are more than happy to argue with unknowledgeable critics – critics who know something is wrong, but don’t quite have the background or understanding of the models to know where the weaknesses are in the alarmist case. The climate scientists delight in being more knowledgeable and all “scientific” against uninformed criticism, because it makes them feel like real scientists instead of charlatans, and is great PR for their cause.

There is something very religious and medieval about all of this. Galileo’s case led to the Enlightenment, in which evidence came to triumph over political authority. In enlightened society, people do not have to believe something just because some political or religious authority say it is so – the evidence determines what is considered true.

But on climate, our society is reversing the Enlightenment, slipping back towards the middle ages. Sure we have smart phones, but our means of determining truth has reverted to political authorities and their pet scientists declaring what is true, denying the evidence, and reviling the unbelievers.

It gets worse. Not only we reversing the values of the Enlightenment, we are de-industrializing. These scam artists, led by those technological buffoons the Greens, want us to close down our cheap and reliable sources of power and go back to using unreliable and intermittent windmills. Like in the middle ages, we would be at the mercy of the breeze, using muscle power where possible. These people pride themselves on being “progressive”, which, like everything else on this topic, is a fully sick parody of the truth.

This corruption has to end. We have repeatedly called for a Royal Commission into the science before taking action, but were of course ignored.

So now I am calling for a debate

Professor Andy Pitman is the leading climate scientist in Australia. Andy has about 20 PhD students working for him, has had millions of dollars of researching funding, and holds lots of prestigious positions in the climate establishment. He recently refused to debate William Kininmonth and me, in the usual dismissive way “I won’t debate people who don’t believe in gravity”. Kininmonth was head of Australia’s National Climate Centre for 12 years, and spent 38 years at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

So Andy, come and debate us. Your side says the evidence for man-made global warming is overwhelming, so it should be easy for you. What’s the problem? The Australian taxpayer looks after you extremely well, so the least you should have to do is explain yourself once in a while.

“What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it.”

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]

please wait...

Rating: 8.3/10 (20 votes cast)

Dr David Evans: Four fatal pieces of evidence, 8.3 out of 10 based on 20 ratings

Going by the polls….It will indeed be a long time in hell before a Labor Government is ever entrusted with government again.

The amount of money that has been wasted on this climate pseudoscience, while a whole universe lay waiting to be properly examined…. it makes one sick thinking of the wasted opportunities. The real science that money could have financed…. Well it’s gone now. It’ll probably be a long time in hell to, before taxpaying voters will allow Government to fund science anymore, if ever. For the abuse was too widespread, the lies and deceit too big and the trust permanently damaged.

Any conservative Government with a Capitalist ideal that comes to power, must reduce the bureaucracy and regulation to the bare essentials. Taxes to barest minimums and government spending to only the very necessary.

Whole economies have been staggered by the Socialists abuse and recklessness.

Whether we can ever bring the practitioners of Climate alchemy to to any sort of account is probably very limited….. The only practical way is to deny them any funding and to cast them into an atmosphere of open competition… Where results count and not political ideology. There they will wither and die.

This is why Monckton is so effective; he brings the subject straight to the public, in a way that they enjoy (except for a few rage-filled Warmists lurking in their bedrooms firing off notes in green ink).

He talks some science, but mainly he talks common sense, and doesn’t talk down to people, by contrast with the ‘consensus scientists’ who are always lecturing people how stupid and selfish they (the people) are.

It is no coincidence that Monckton is the Warmists’s Number 1 hate figure.

The way it will probably pan out is that the public will never know that anthropogenic global warming was a scam and a farce. They will, and are, losing interest in the whole topic and eventually there will no longer be enough support for the politicians to consider suggesting policy based on it. It will take much longer for the harmful effects to be nullified, both the policies/taxes and the economic damage.

This is the way it has happened with similar events in the past; the ozone hole, Y2K, DDT to name a few. Our task is to limit the damage while all this happens.

Is science decided by two people facing off across a room? Can complex scientific problems be solved over the course of a one hour public argument?

No. Scientific debate is conducted through peer-reviewed journals. Here’s the problem: a skilled debater can win any argument, regardless of the side they choose to take. Look at Christopher Monckton – he has been shown to be comprehensively wrong about just about every statement he has ever made about climate change, but he can still win an argument against a climate scientist because he knows all the debating tricks. Changing the subject. Nitpicking. Judicious use of humour. Demanding details about things that are irrelevant to the argument. Throwing red herrings into the discussion. He is an excellent debater. That’s not surprising – he’s a politician, not a scientist. Scientists are generally very bad at debates. That doesn’t make them wrong, it makes them bad debaters.

David, if you want to advance the science, submit a properly researched and referenced journal paper to a reputable peer-reviewed journal. That’s the scientific method at work – not some sort of carnival show.

One point (more reated to the previous thread) worth noting is this … the Government’s CO2 tax modelling assumed carbon credits would be readily available from other countries. This presupposes markets which do not yet exist. Without these credits being available the price of Australian credits would skyrocket as demand outstrips supply. The mitigation was never intended to come from Australia, but rather other countries less dependent on energy-intensive industries.

As with any modelling the GIGO rule applies, and this one assumption probably trumps anything else in the model. Economists can screw up models just as well as climate scientists… just as with climate, the economy is a complex, multivariate, system. Nothing is ever “ceteris paribus” in reality.

The way it will probably pan out is that the public will never know that anthropogenic global warming was a scam and a farce.

Much as I wish I could agree with you HB (because it is a more palatable outcome), unfortunately I doubt it will be the case this time.

People have forgotten the original aim of this whole CAGW scam – massive population reduction.

We have just been through an entirely predictable and predicted 25 year warming cycle, and now we are entering an entirely predictable and predicted cooling cycle.

The last cooling cycle – 1960 to 1975 (or thereabouts) was a particularly mild one (increased solar activity and a positive PDO), and the population was around 4.5 billion. The western world was in a period of expansion – there were surplus food crops, energy production was increasing, and countries were financially healthy.

And still we had mass famines, poverty, starvation and death. Millions died.

This developing cooling cycle promises to be much harsher (reduced solar activity and a negative PDO), the western world is in a financial mess, ALL western countries teeter on energy poverty, around half of the world’s surplus food supply is now converted into biofuel, and we have an extra two and half billion mouths to feed.

On that basis it is pretty hard to see how around two to three billion people are NOT going to die in the next decade or so.

Somehow I think most people will notice.

And as sites like this attest, with the internet people will know WHY it happened, and WHO was responsible.

The Dessler paper shows atmospheric humidity, but only at lower levels & not at the 12km height that is supposed to be the tropospheric hot spot. I notice they don’t mention that on Scepticalscience.conjob either. Perhaps instead of just quoting cherry picked & misrepresented papers you should try reading them and comparing them to the AGW hypothesis. 3 peer-reviewed papers have come out this year showing that low level clouds reflect radiation back into space (something else I’m sure they won’t be mentioning at scepticalscience.conjob):

surely you can’t be suggesting Hansen’s predictions have come true, that the oceans are warming in the absence of any evidence, or that there is a tropical hotspot? I cant even begin to think anyone (in their right mind) would suggest a warmer world would release less heat than a cooler one. There is reality and there is official climate reality!

Pitman needs badly to be knocked off his bandwagon. I saw him on the ABC about last March or April saying that the models predict even more extreme scenarios than are being publicly touted now, but they have to reject the more extreme results because they are too frightening. If he gets to pick and choose which results he likes, why should we pay him any attention at all?

In the unlikely event a debate goes ahead, the chances the mainstream media will report on it are also slim. The warmists have many lines of defence in this regard. However, the evidence is not one of them.

Ok Ill put more. ALL these stooges that believe this crap (AGW etc) are fronts for the globalists bankers and the one world order. If they dont actually work directly for them then they are dupes and patsies (just like the Underware Bomber) Same thing in different disguise. All the crap that is going on whether climate scams or wars in the middle East or false flag attacks are run by the same bankers and global elitists. Theres so much information via the alternative media that I have no idea how the MSM even survives or has the face tpo say the pitiful lies that they propagate. Theres no hope.

This is why I just love sites like this.
Having been ‘at this’ now for three and a half years, I have visited literally thousands and more sites. Having a site like Joanne’s here gives me even more links to follow, and our good friend blvr has kindly shown us another.

In comment 20 he mentioned The Clean Development Mechanism. (CDM from now on)

Remember I mentioned that Kyoto culled 23 Countries from 192, and those 23 Countries of which Australia is one, have to pay all the costs of those 152 Countries who only need do nothing more than report their emissions.

So, let me see if I have this right. Oz can send Billions to these Developing Countries to fulfill our Kyoto obligation, (thanks Kevvie) on things that patently will never be made to work, all so we can have some emissions here in Oz.

Man, I’m so glad our Government is looking after us, and getting plenty of help to do just that from the UN.

Blvr ,you give the impression of having your head around some of the science. After several years of asking all and sundry for basic physics explanations of how CO2 drives significant climate change the only coherent explanation of the fundamental physics I have been able to obtain is John Nicol’s analysis. Nicol concludes CO2 doesn’t do anything significant beyond what Nature is already doing towards climate change. Nicol maintains that the physics needed is 3rd year undergraduate level which suggests to me that peer review is unecessary. I assume you are able to refute Nicol’s conclusions. So the question for you is “What facts of 20th century physics convince you that a carbon tax will have any significant effect on climate change.(I am assuming that you agree that any climate modelling which incorporates elements of the pre20th century conjectures of Fourier,Tyndall and Arrhenius can not deliver useful results).

The moral of the story is that if you have influential mates in the mainstream, you can get any garbage published and peer reviewed. If you are an outsider to the clique, you can have the Ten Commandments in God’s own handwriting or Darwin’s Origin of the Species, and there is no way on earth you will get it past the wall of denial that is the wonderful peer review. As Wikipedia so aptly put it- “The scandal provoked discussion in the scientific community about the degree of responsibility of coauthors and reviewers of scientific papers. The debate centered on whether peer review, traditionally designed to find errors and determine relevance and originality of papers, should also be required to detect deliberate fraud”. I would add that I don’t believe peer review even accomplishes these humble aims, and is more about entrenching the prevailing paradigm and stifling innovation and dissent.

Thanks Jo for an Informative article
With Permission can I copy and Paste to Email
I feel the best way we can send this information
out into the Community is by spreading the Information
and not just blogging about it amongst Ourselves.

REPLY: Yes, thanks, emailing the articles helps, and I do appreciate it if you can link back to the site. In the long run, bringing in a few new readers is even better. Thanks. JN

Given the remarks from Dr Evans, I am taking the liberty of repeating the comment I made on the previous thread:

I have had some involvement (professionally) with legal drafting (not as a drafter, but as a researcher), and it is not a fast process. It is not something that you can toss off in a few weeks, and certainly not of the size we are seeing here.

These proposed bills have been in gestation since before the last election, and I would suggest a long time before the last election.

It is my guess that they were originally drafted by lawyers working for the Greens. The deal that Brown offered to Gillard (and possibly to Abbot) was that adopting the draft legislation as policy, was the price of forming a coalition government that included the Greens. Neither party could get the numbers without accepting that position. It was a hijack. It was election by coercion. Brown made her an offer she couldn’t refuse.

In the event, Gillard and the independents sold their souls to get into power. That is how, and why, this legislation is being forced on the Australian people against their wishes. Gillard is not in charge. She is weak and she is vulnerable. Brown has made it clear that she has no options left. If she does not see this through, she will never be in a position of power again.

This explains why she said, “There will be no Carbon Tax in any Government I lead”, when she was free, and then later went ahead and started talking about “Carbon Pollution” once the reality of being in coalition started to bite.

Power is a drug, and she is hooked, she will see this through to the bitter end, and still she will fail because although the legislation will be in place, it will not achieve its intent. The law of unintended consequences will kick in, and Australia will end up with the same level of social harmony as Greece. In fact, Greece may be safer place to move to.

That of course is the reality. The complexity is not in the basic building blocks of the relatively little and easily understood science upon which climate science rests but rather in the complex and chaotic nature of Earth’s climate which at present is only partially or fragmentally understood by any scientist. The mathematics of modelling may daunt many but there are more fundamental problems in reconciling the known science with the alarmist position.

Scientists from NCAR and the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia claim that the oceans at times may absorb enough heat to flatten the rate of global warming for periods of as long as a decade even in the midst of longer-term warming.

Remember I mentioned that Kyoto culled 23 Countries from 192, and those 23 Countries of which Australia is one, have to pay all the costs of those 152 Countries who only need do nothing more than report their emissions.

Tony, surely you realise that the G20 countries account for about 85% of world GDP?

Once you go outside of the G20 there is a long list of countries, but all together they account for just 15% of GDP.

So the tiny minority that have the time and education to understand the issue are going to be completely drowned out by the tide of people that don’t have the time or education to understand it, but are nonetheless forced to vote.

Isn’t Australia a Democracy which is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives?

[Adam, surely you realise that NH countries account for about 90% of world population?]
Surely you realise what a non-sequitur is?

I mean what is your point? Australia is in the G20 and we ain’t in the northern hemisphere. China and India together account for abut 35% of the world’s population, but most of them live in poverty relative to the average Australian. In fact Australians living in poverty are better off than a Chinese or Indian that lives in poverty.

My simple point was that a very small number of countries accounts for most of the world’s wealth generating capacity. You then have a lost of something like 150 countries that account for the other 15%.

I have had some involvement (professionally) with legal drafting (not as a drafter, but as a researcher), and it is not a fast process. It is not something that you can toss off in a few weeks, and certainly not of the size we are seeing here.

They took about 6 weeks to draft.

These proposed bills have been in gestation since before the last election, and I would suggest a long time before the last election.

Well no, they couldn’t be drated until the government announced its policy on July 7th. But you should take into account that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Rudd’s ETS) had been drafted, so it is quite likely that the drafters could call on their experience in drafting that legislation, so the Clean Energy bills were faster to draft than the CPRS was.

It is my guess that they were originally drafted by lawyers working for the Greens.

Well you would be completely wrong. Drafting bills is a highly skilled exercise, thus it is done by a dedicated department. The drafters can also call on the advice of the solicitor general to right formal legal opinions on contentious matters. The Government may present this advice to parliament to justify the presentation of controversial bills.

The deal that Brown offered to Gillard (and possibly to Abbot) was that adopting the draft legislation as policy, was the price of forming a coalition government that included the Greens. Neither party could get the numbers without accepting that position. It was a hijack. It was election by coercion. Brown made her an offer she couldn’t refuse.

Absolutely and completely wrong. The bills were drafted by the public servants.

In the event, Gillard and the independents sold their souls to get into power. That is how, and why, this legislation is being forced on the Australian people against their wishes. Gillard is not in charge. She is weak and she is vulnerable. Brown has made it clear that she has no options left. If she does not see this through, she will never be in a position of power again.

Question. If Abbott was currently PM, would you be saying that he sold his soul? After all, he was willing to offer Andrew Wilkie $1 billion for the Hobart hospital when he only asked for $500 million!

This explains why she said, “There will be no Carbon Tax in any Government I lead”, when she was free, and then later went ahead and started talking about “Carbon Pollution” once the reality of being in coalition started to bite.

The government’s policy, and the legislation currently before the House of Representatives is not a carbon tax. It is a fixed price emissions trading scheme that shifts to a floating price from 2015.

Power is a drug, and she is hooked, she will see this through to the bitter end, and still she will fail because although the legislation will be in place, it will not achieve its intent. The law of unintended consequences will kick in, and Australia will end up with the same level of social harmony as Greece. In fact, Greece may be safer place to move to.

What a ridiculous thing to say Australia’s economy is something like three times the size of Greece’s. Australia’s debt to GDP ratio is about 7%, when in Greece it is something like 150%.

Basically you are trashing the country, and talking down our entire economy simply because you don’t like the Prime Minister.

Isn’t Australia a Democracy which is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives?

Well kind of. We all had our say at the last election and ‘decided’ that we wanted to have a hung parliament.

The House of Representatives then supported Julia Gillard to remain Prime Minister because Tony Abbott turned out to be shit house at negotiation (which is an important skill for any democratic leader to have).

So the tiny minority that have the time and education to understand the issue are going to be completely drowned out by the tide of people that don’t have the time or education to understand it, but are nonetheless forced to vote.

By Windy blvr (gone to beddies)!

Well kind of. We all had our say at the last election and ‘decided’ that we wanted to have a hung parliament

By Smith (Just woke up)!

All this from one question!

Isn’t Australia a Democracy which is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives?

The trick is that they never put any alarmist climate scientist in a position where they have to answer to a knowledgeable critic.

this is such a loaded and open to interpretation statement, and is the reason why I and other spend more time fighting against the critics than addressing the science. The shrill agenda driven commentators need to get out of the way.

David, please send this article to the UK government – specifically Chris Huhne, chief eco-loon and head of the (get this combination) Department of Energy and Climate Change…
Not that it’ll make any difference – our politicians have been SO ‘got at’ by the Greens that they wouldn’t recognise reality in this matter if it smacked them in the face – in any case, there are umpteen ways to tax us in the name of ‘reducing global warming/climate change’ (fuel taxes; subsidies for windmills; air travel surcharges, etc etc)…
One day all the chickens will come home to roost – but I fear it won’t be in my lifetime…

Under this great scheme a power station here in Australia that is of the same size and efficiency as a similar power station in China may be buying CDM credits off that Chinese power station because it is replacing one or more old inefficient power stations.
It could be that Australia could be buying all its carbon credits from new Chinese coal fired power stations with CDM’s to burn.After all china only has to say that they would not have built such stations if the CDM’s were not available.

Under this great scheme a power station here in Australia that is of the same size and efficiency as a similar power station in China may be buying CDM credits off that Chinese power station because it is replacing one or more old inefficient power stations.

Australia doesn’t have any power stations as efficient as the most efficient power stations in China.

That’s the hilarious thing. Apparently Australia should lecture China about cutting their emissions, yet their newest power stations are far more efficient than our power stations.

China and India together account for about(sic) 35% of the world’s population, but most of them live in poverty relative to the average Australian. In fact Australians living in poverty are better off than a Chinese or Indian that lives in poverty.

And that is the “dream” isn’t it? Have all the middle and upper middle class (not the absolute untouchable elite mind you!) back down to the level just above the Oz poverty line. After all, our greedy modern lifestyles are depriving poor Chinese and Indian children of a square meal. It’s our obligation, as global citizens, to divest ourselves of our worldly possessions for the betterment of those less fortunate than ourselves? Only trouble is, if you took every last thin dime off every Australian man, woman and child you would make no significant ripple in the poverty experienced in India or China, let alone the entire African continent as well. Our only obligation should be to get our own house in order, and show the merits of a modern progressive economy, with responsible fiscal management minimising debt, low birth rates, tolerant social mores and freedom of religion, a free and unbiased press, democratic political systems based on the Westminster system, good governance with free and open debate vigorously attended, a sound education system unfettered by politicisation, and investing sensibly in scientific advancement in areas of medicine, land and resource management, and technology with the over-riding theme of improving our quality of life and health of our citizens. If that then has flow on effects to others, then so be it. Generosity is much easier for a vital and thriving economy, rather than a devitalised and stagnant one.

Greece is what you get when the taxation collected is used disproportionately
to provide for the non-productive people within the economy,
i.e. the producers evade and avoid, the government and public service is bloated
and the bill for spending is pushed into the future, and that debt is supported by wealthier
countries within the EU.
Is it a democracy when an apparent core promise made by a newly elected Government is shelved without reference to the electorate ?
The questions with regard to knowing about the science, proving what is known and deciding about what is known is difficult in non-linear hyper-complex systems.
The semantics of Tax vs ERM is not worth finessing in detail. The electorate seem to accept there is no substantive difference, to begin with at least.
I like to listen to the big-brother words…”Clean Energy”. “Carbon Pollution”
I hope Ms Gillard and co. appreciate their future “other employedness” (and let’s hope it’s for a long long time)
I wonder whether Mr Adam Smith sees the use of pejoratives as “ridiculous” as helpful, instructive or perhaps it is intended as an ad him ?
In any case it is my impression that like the Catholic church found after the Enlightenment, as a result of the Climate Cash Grab Caper, the left in all it’s guises, will have a more difficult time marketing it’s “you owe me my living” brand of philosophy.

And that is the “dream” isn’t it? Have all the middle and upper middle class (not the absolute untouchable elite mind you!) back down to the level just above the Oz poverty line.

Who’s dream is this? It certainly isn’t mine.

After all, our greedy modern lifestyles are depriving poor Chinese and Indian children of a square meal.

No, actually our desire for consumption is helping pull millions of Chinese out of poverty every year.

It’s our obligation, as global citizens, to divest ourselves of our worldly possessions for the betterment of those less fortunate than ourselves?

Well I’m glad you put a question mark at the end of this statement, so that I can reply to it by saying “no”.

Only trouble is, if you took every last thin dime off every Australian man, woman and child you would make no significant ripple in the poverty experienced in India or China, let alone the entire African continent as well.

Well that’s funny, because I haven’t proposed taking anyone’s money, let alone everyone’s money. I propose we make everyone wealthier by growing our economies, but in a way that is sustainable. I don’t think the current generation should deplete resources in a way that makes things harder for future generations.

Our only obligation should be to get our own house in order, and show the merits of a modern progressive economy, with responsible fiscal management minimising debt, low birth rates, tolerant social mores and freedom of religion, a free and unbiased press, democratic political systems based on the Westminster system, good governance with free and open debate vigorously attended, a sound education system unfettered by politicisation, and investing sensibly in scientific advancement in areas of medicine, land and resource management, and technology with the over-riding theme of improving our quality of life and health of our citizens. If that then has flow on effects to others, then so be it. Generosity is much easier for a vital and thriving economy, rather than a devitalised and stagnant one.

Ha! Well there isn’t much in here I disagree with.

I guess I could pick at the assertion that the Westminister model is the best model. I think the Australian model is better, which is really a unique hybrid that contains elements of Westminster and the American system along with a few things of our own making (like the secret ballot for example).

Having a low birthrate is interesting, because both sides of politics have encouraged an increase to the birthrate. The Coalition had the baby bonus and now the current government has instituted paid parental leave. Do you think both of these policies should be repealed?

Australia has the lowest debt in the OECD, so we have achieved that no problem at all. Just last night the IMF reported as such. When they were asked about Australia’s debt the economist responded:

But the IMF said Australia had enough economic firepower to avoid a recession, saying the Federal Government did not overspend in ensuring Australia avoided becoming a victim of the last financial crisis.

“No absolutely not, the Government’s debt to GDP ratio is very low in Australia – very, very low,” report co-author Jorg Decressin said. “So much lower than in many other advanced economies that there is plenty of space to respond to future eventualities.”

I’m happy to hear Adam Smith referring to the superiority of the most efficient power plants in China. I shall avoid any confusion that might be created by cut-paste quotes and simply say that, after re-examining comments 61 and 62, there can be no doubt that the plants referred to in those comments were coal-fired plants.

And how much I agree with Adam Smith when he finds it hilarious that we should lecture China about emissions when their newest power stations are far more efficient than ours.

My family lives in Cairns, I care deeply for my 2 beautiful sons and my beautiful princess. I want them to inherit a beautiful earth as well. But, this is a disgrace!!!

What we lack in Cairns has been a decent debate, or for that matter, a info evening on the scam that is `Global Warming`!!!

We have missed out on Monckton here in Cairns. We always do

We need a hearing here in Cairns, can you please contact me via your sources and see if we can organise something for Cairns, with perhaps Prof. Bob Carter, yourself and i would love to get Tony from Oz up here as well.

Greece is what you get when the taxation collected is used disproportionately
to provide for the non-productive people within the economy,

Completely wrong. Greece is what you get when most of the population avoids paying tax. There are professionals in Greece that earn over 100,000 Euros a year that don’t pay any tax.

They also have a ridiculously large bureaucracy, where the average public servant earns 2.5 times more than the average private sector employee.

Is it a democracy when an apparent core promise made by a newly elected Government is shelved without reference to the electorate ?

It can be. Governments should respond to changing times. The idea of a government that simply does one thing even if circumstances radically change is a scary proposition. In fact that is basically what successive Greek governments have done. They have just borrowed more and more money instead of properly funding the government by having a tax system that involves people paying what they owe. But of course getting people to pay taxes is less popular than simply borrowing more money. Well, until now when they can’t borrow more and are headed to default.

I hope Ms Gillard and co. appreciate their future “other employedness” (and let’s hope it’s for a long long time)

Even if Labor loses the next election Gillard won’t, unlike John Howard, lose his seat. She could remain in parliament if she wants to.

I wonder whether Mr Adam Smith sees the use of pejoratives as “ridiculous” as helpful, instructive or perhaps it is intended as an ad him ?
In any case it is my impression that like the Catholic church found after the Enlightenment, as a result of the Climate Cash Grab Caper, the left in all it’s guises, will have a more difficult time marketing it’s “you owe me my living” brand of philosophy.

I’m happy to hear Adam Smith referring to the superiority of the most efficient power plants in China. I shall avoid any confusion that might be created by cut-paste quotes and simply say that, after re-examining comments 61 and 62, there can be no doubt that the plants referred to in those comments were coal-fired plants.

Well I am happy to please you. If we are going to burn coal we should do it as efficiently as possible.

Even if you don’t think global warming is a problem, shouldn’t we burn coal as efficiently as possible, so we leave as much coal left for future generations so that they can use it too?

Of course pricing carbon actually encourages the more efficient burning of coal.

(You have been off topic every single time.Get on topic or face moderation! ) CTS

What is the topic of this thread? The heading talks about a submission on carbon pricing, i.e. whether or not pricing carbon is a good way to reduce emissions, but then the text of the post talks about global warming not being real.

It doesn’t even say anything about posts needing to be directly relevant to each thread.

But anyway, please just explain what counts as relevant on this thread. Just give me some examples and I will be relevant, but as it stands I don’t know what counts as being directly relevant to this particular thread.

(Comment Rules
Constructive comments and questions from all sides of the climate change debate are welcome. In order to promote debate, posts often go up first with moderation post-publication. Please don’t abuse this) (Your comments that completely ignored the presentation are not on topic and therefore not constructive.The name of Jo’s post is: Dr David Evans: Four fatal pieces of evidence along with her short statement: Dr David Evans lays out four crucial pieces of evidence, and calls for a debate with Prof Andrew Pitman. But the evidence is so unarguably strong for skeptics, we know that the name-calling-team-who-want-our-money will do anything to avoid a public debate. If the evidence is “overwhelming” why are they so unwilling to explain it? — Jo) CTS

(You picked up on the heading,that you have misunderstood and ignored the presentation about the science,lack of honest debates and past climate trends.That is why you are off topic.) CTS

Good to see that more physicists are getting involved in the climate change debate and showing that the role of the greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide, in relation to climate change, has been overplayed when it should, in reality, be underplayed.

I am prepared to stake my money on this prediction… that after Dr Jasper Kirkby and his team of thousands of scientists at CERN, Geneva, complete follow-up research to the CLOUD experiment, climatologists will look back and wonder

1. why they ever thought that carbon dioxide played an important role in global warming and climate change, and

2. question why they never considered the possibility that it is the clouds that have the greatest influence on climate… just as Danish scientist, Dr Hans Svensmark, proposed a few years ago.

how duplicitous can the Coalition get? yesterday they had Abbott promising to seize emissions permits from businesses, and Jensen saying CAGW is a fraud, and today it’s all about setting up a carbon (dioxide) market!

21 Sept: Herald Sun: AAP: Australia wants UN climate treaty by 2015
AUSTRALIA now believes a legally-binding global agreement on cutting carbon emissions should not be signed until 2015 – and the Federal Opposition says it is happy to work to that timetable.
In the interim, in a joint submission with Norway to the United Nations, Australia says countries should work towards establishing “a common international framework for mitigation targets and actions”.
“Common rules will provide transparency, promote a global carbon market and ensure the environmental integrity of any binding climate agreement,” the joint submission states.
“An important part of the outcome in Durban (in November) should be to establish rules and frameworks for accounting.
Opposition climate action spokesman Greg Hunt says the coalition is happy to work towards a 2015 binding agreement.
But he noted today things were moving much slower than originally anticipated.
“We would like to have an international agreement,” Mr Hunt said in Canberra.
“But what the submission notes is that there’s no realistic prospect before 2015 – six years after Copenhagen.”…http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/australia-wants-un-climate-treaty-by-2015/story-e6frf7jx-1226142775730

what a disgrace the politicians are.

20 Sept: AFP: US sees global discord on climate action
But of major economies that would have obligations under a Kyoto extension, only the European Union is in favor, Stern (Todd Stern, the US special envoy on climate change) said.
“My sense is that the EU is the only one that is still considering signing up in some fashion to a second Kyoto commitment period. Japan clearly isn’t, Russia clearly isn’t, Canada clearly isn’t and I think Australia appears not likely,” Stern told reporters on a conference call.
The United States is not part of the Kyoto discussions. But it has repeatedly called for any future agreement to involve all major economies.
“We could consider it only if it’s genuinely binding with respect to all the major players, whether developed or developing, including China and others,” Stern said…http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jC0upECZuEEtoflS0powcfvelN9Q?docId=CNG.89b124e773c6333e7ba7f7550dbdcd03.3c1

While in no way wishing to side with Adam Smith may I just point out that in this thread the subject of carbon credits was first brought up by Bulldust @ 18 it was then picked up by blvr @ 20 it was further expanded by TonyfromOz @ 31 then I posted a link to a CDM explanation @ 62 and Adam Smith picked it up from there.
So at the risk of getting myself into trouble.I think it is a little unfair to blame Adam Smith for taking it off topic on this occasion.

(Yes they have,but they are NOT doing it over and over.There are leeway for some off topic postings.Adam has never been on topic yet.No comment about DR. Evans presentation has showed up.Nothing about the science,the lack of debates and the dishonest cover ups.It becomes a thread hijack) CTS

(1) Hansen predictions: Hansen’s 1988 predictions were actually pretty good – he had a rather high (4.2°C) climate sensitivity in his model, his Scenario B emissions were close to what actually happened economically (although his CH4 estimates were high). The comparison of his surface temperature predictions here to a tropospheric temperature record is cheating a bit, too.

See the Schmidt 2009 analysis (blog, not a paper). Hansen 1988 is well within the range of error, especially with the overestimate on sensitivity factored in. Not a bad model at all.

(2) Ocean heat: 8 years? When the statistics indicate that you need more than twice that for a significant result? When the temperature record contains multiple decade long ups and downs overlaid on the trends? The term here is cherry picking.

(3) Tropospheric ‘hot spot’: I’ve been involved with discussions on this before – the real GHG signature is a cooling stratosphere relative to the troposphere, there is decent evidence for a warmer troposphere now, and examination of the radiosonde data indicate issues with older data that may be hiding those temperatures.

But I’ll fully admit that there’s room for disagreement on this one.

(4) “…the earth gives off more heat when the surface is warmer, and less heat in months when the earth’s surface is cooler. Who could have guessed? But the climate models say the opposite, that the Earth gives off less heat when the surface is warmer, because they trap heat too aggressively (positive feedback).”

Nope. This is a strawman argument, and a mis-statement of the physics. I really hope this was not deliberate! The Earth is always (all else held constant) going to give off more heat when warmer than colder. But, at any given temperature the Earth will give off less heat with more greenhouse gases. Hence if GHG’s increase, the Earth must warm up to release the same amount of energy to space.

So this seasonal data for energy released due to surface sea temperatures, over a time period in which GHG’s had little or no chance to change, says exactly nothing about the relationship between greenhouse gases and energy to space. Claims otherwise are either mistaken or deceptive.

—

As I said, impressive. And wrong. And a distortion of the science to (in my opinion, mind you) win political points.

Adam, the moderators are carefully chosen volunteers who have helped on the site for 1- 2 years. There are not many, and I am very grateful for their help. Without them, it wouldn’t be possible to keep the comments open. We’re getting a lot of comments at the moment, and there are several threads running simultaneously. In view of that, it may be time to lift standards and be more strict with discussions. It would improve the site no end to keep comments more relevant to the thread. This thread is obviously about the evidence, and the call for a debate on that evidence.

I think the real point here is that you were asked to shift threads, but ignored that request.

One of the site policies is that people need to self-edit and moderate. I’m grateful your posts are polite. Is it too much to ask that you respect the moderators requests? If you think they are unfair, or need explaining you can email support At joannenova.com.au and ask.

So there is a schedule of mid Oct for passage through the HoR, and by Nov 21 for the Senate. Good to see as it allows plenty of time for debate but put the opposition on notice not to waste time and filibuster, IF they actually have anything worth hearing to say.

And oh Joy! The Libs are moving to wed themselves to the “Dead and Buried” Workchoices as well.

I think the real point here is that you were asked to shift threads, but ignored that request.

I’m sorry but where was I asked to shift threads? It is possible I missed it, but couldn’t this have simply been repeated in another moderation comment?

If I was explicitly told “Adam please take these comments to this thread [insert link]” I would’ve been more than happy to comply with the request.

Is it too much to ask that you respect the moderators requests? If you think they are unfair, or need explaining you can email support At joannenova.com.au and ask.

It is not too much to ask at all. I simply asked for some clarification on exactly what was permissible to be discussed on this thread. I feel I expressed this politely in posts 77, 78 and 82. I didn’t revert to bad language, I just wanted some guidance before I made another post that was deemed to be off-topic. It wasn’t just me who was confused as in post 83 by rukidding pointed out that others had made comments similar to mine too. And also I was really only responding to questions put to me anyway.

I’m more than happy to comply with the moderation rules, I just needed some additional clarification on exactly what I could post about on this occasion.

(You have been polite and asked a reasonable question.However I did point out that you were not addressing Dr. Evans presentation.You never have been discussing the science he brought up and to discuss debate unfairness claims.You kept talking about something else in comment after comment.That did not pertain to Dr. Evans presentation.Post #53 you made this comment,that set me off on your 5 straight COMPLETELY off topic comments:

Instead of debating debating about he issues, why not just debate the issues instead?

The only unknown is when Hansen and Trenberth realised that the fundamental science behind the models is wrong.

1. The Southern ocean deeps started to warm 2000 years before any rise in atmospheric CO2. The mechanism is the true global warming, the decrease in cloud albedo by aerosols triggered [from stored dimethyl sulphide and from phytoplankton blooms initiated by iron from occluded dust] at the edge of the Antarctic ice pack. The same mechanism is occuring now in the Arctic where it’s a 70 year cycle.

2. ‘Back radiation’ is a classical mistake by Trenberth who was not taught the detailed physocs around the 2nd law of thermodynamics. They stick a pyrgeometer upwards and what is detected is mainly Prevost exchange energy. Then they use a single sided Stefan Boltzmannn calculation when that does not predict net radiation. This is an appalling error.

3. Hansen’s mistake was to use Sagan’s optical physics of aerosols not realising it has a major error in that it doesn’t include a second optical effect. There is absolutely no experimental evidence of this cooling AND as it’s built into satellite algorithms, that sensing is broken too

4. There been a mistake in predicting that we have 33K GHE warming. In reality it’s a third that.

The net result is that none of the climate models can predict climate.

Its really sad to see Australia stuck in this situation. Where anthropogenic climate change is still a debate, the public cannot decide who is telling the truth, a small group of lefty members of the legislature who are forcing the government to bring in a politically suicidal tax it does not really want, and a Prime Miinister who will be royally screwed at the next election. This is a bizarre time in Oz.

A question about David Evans’s post. He says, “Remember, there is no direct evidence that man causes global warming”. What would be direct evidence that man causes global warming? I’m assuming he’s not saying, “evidence that man causes all global warming” because that would be absurd so evidence that man makes some contribution to global warming. I thought it was indisputable that human activity makes some contribution and that the argument is about how much.

If it’s in principle impossible to distinguish a human contribution then nothing is proved by saying it can’t be seen. But if it is possible what would the evidence be? Correspondingly, I don’t think proving or disproving the “AGW” theory is an all-or-nothing thing either.

Adam, I see a note from a moderator starting at #53,and other commenters mentioning your habit of taking threads off topic. It’s not just this thread. You’ve posted 750 comments on the site since July 30th. Yes, others are off topic too, fair call, and perhaps we need to upgrade the whole site policy, (we are discussing it) but the sheer number of posts dominates the thread. I count 17 comments now out of 93?

The people who write the most need to meet a higher standard.

How about if a moderator says it’s off-topic, you pick a better thread and move yourself, or you can try to discuss the point of the post?

I may have misunderstood the background of your comment on the opinion by Windy (blvr) ;

“”"So the tiny minority that have the time and education to understand the issue are going to be completely drowned out by the tide of people that don’t have the time or education to understand it, but are nonetheless forced to vote.”"”

If they wrote the above to promote the idea of us all sitting back to let the Climate Science Illuminati look after our scientific needs I totally agree with you. There are better scientists out there.

Mr Dreyfus, what happens to your job if this Govt is turfed out along with this toxic tax? Exactly! Thank goodness for Professor Ergas as he is enabling the kind of debate this Govt seems intent on avoiding at the cost of our democracy. Many writers have already addressed what is happening worldwide, but you write as if we have not already seen this information. Like that NZ is recommending they cut back on their scheme for the good of their economy. That California has an economy in the toilet and all the big countries like the US are backing away from any scheme in the foreseeable future. We know that this tax will do absolutely zero, zilch nada to lower global temperatures (which we also know are declining naturally and it has more to do with solar activity or lack of it at the moment). What this Govt is implementing is economic vandalism, not certainty and the majority of Australians and business want this Govt stopped!

Comment I submitted yesterday, which did make it:

Now read all this with the other headline today in mind, Global recovery has stalled: IMF! What country in their right mind would steam roll ahead at this point? Only an Australian Govt needing to stay in power another two years knowing it will spend many, many years in opposition as Australians suffer under unnecessary burdens it has imposed. They intend to rip billions out of our economy to redistribute elsewhere and fill their Govt coffers and it will do zero, zilch, nada towards the stated aim of lowering global temperatures. BTW, temps are already declining naturally from a breathtaking .8 of a degree increase in 150 years (we saw greater warming during the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Warm Period). The only people screeching climate doomerism are a) some scientists who have become academic celebrities from scaremongering and multiple failed predictions (Flannery et al), b) the politicians who see how they can increase the tax take to fund rapidly burgeoning Govt and c) all the climate specific Govt depts and bureaucrats (see culprits b) who now fear for their jobs if an agreement is not reached in Durban and we get a change of Govt.

KR,
1. Hansen was wrong. Fail. Get over it. He needs professional psychiatric help.
2.Ocean temperatures before ARGO were useless. So we’ve got a good 8 year record. That is all there is. No ocean warming despite increasing CO2. Sorry. Fail.
3.We haven’t measured a mid troposphere tropical hotspot. Fail. The stratosphere is heated by oxygen and ozone absorption of solar UV. It is what causes the stratosphere. This has now been found to be highly variable. Unless you account for this properly you’ve got nothing re your cooling stratosphere. Fail.
4.The claim is that increased CO2 traps more outgoing radiation when the Earth is warmer. Seems it doesn’t. Fail.

All this could be due to the total GHG increase being at most 1% which is much less alarming than the 35% increase in CO2 usually quoted. I doubt we can measure the total GHG including water vapour that accurately.
Fail again.

(1) Actually, Hansen was pretty close to right. See the link I posted. And then you drop into insults – just not relevant.

Some predictions have been pretty accurate, some have not – you have to compare them and see. Curiously, the ‘skeptic’ predictions have not fared very well in comparison… Loehle and Scafetta’s, for example, predicts temperatures well below absolute zero (0 K) in the last ice age.

(2) We have measured temperatures back for decades, albeit with less accuracy than the ARGO, with the XBT measurements. Not to mention tidal gauge measures of eustatic/steric sea rise, which we have several hundred years of data for, all of which shows the increasing OHC.

(3) The stratosphere is heated by UV, and cooled by GHG emissions to space – the cooling has been clearly measured. The troposphere is expanding, and it appears there’s enough uncertainty in the temperature measures there that you simply cannot make a flat statement that it’s not warming.

(4) You appear not to understand basic physics. Increased GHG’s will trap more heat. But the monthly data used in Dr. Evan’s claims are over a period where there wasn’t a significant change in GHG levels, just seasonal warming/cooling, hence that data says nothing about GHG effects. The key word there is “increased”, which doesn’t hold for that data set.

All this could be due to the total GHG increase being at most 1% which is much less alarming than the 35% increase in CO2 usually quoted. I doubt we can measure the total GHG including water vapour that accurately.

Fail again.

Appalling. CO2 levels are actually quite easy to measure, as is absolute/relative humidity, CH4, ozone, etc. Take a look at the Time history of CO2.

Your statements are in direct contradiction to measurements, to reality. That’s unfortunate – and to quote you, Fail.

(2) Ocean heat: 8 years? When the statistics indicate that you need more than twice that for a significant result? When the temperature record contains multiple decade long ups and downs overlaid on the trends? The term here is cherry picking.

No I think the expression is: “hiding behind the cherry tree”. How conveniently you discount empirical evidence that is uncomfortable.

It would seem to me that Dr. Roy Spencer has seen a bit of this in his recent encounter with Dr. Andy Dessler:

Comparisons of Satellite Measurements to Climate Models

Figure 2 in his paper, we believe, helps make our point for us: there is a substantial difference between the satellite measurements and the climate models. He tries to minimize the discrepancy by putting 2-sigma error bounds on the plots and claiming the satellite data are not necessarily inconsistent with the models.

But this is NOT the same as saying the satellite data SUPPORT the models. After all, the IPCC’s best estimate projections of future warming from a doubling of CO2 (3 deg. C) is almost exactly the average of all of the models sensitivities! So, when the satellite observations do depart substantially from the average behavior of the models, this raises an obvious red flag.

(2) Ocean heat: 8 years? When the statistics indicate that you need more than twice that for a significant result? When the temperature record contains multiple decade long ups and downs overlaid on the trends? The term here is cherry picking.

No I think the expression is: “hiding behind the cherry tree”. How conveniently you discount empirical evidence that is uncomfortable.

I would note how conveniently you seize upon small pieces of data that appear to support your viewpoint, despite those pieces being far too short for statistical significance.

—

Dr. Spencer/Dessler is another issue entirely, and I would have thought it rather off topic for this thread. But, since you brought it up:

- Spencer failed to include any significance measures in his paper. Entirely inappropriate. Dessler included those measures, and hence we are able to judge how well his data matches up.

- Climate models are boundary condition models that predict average behavior. They don’t do as well at predicting short term variations, and really aren’t expected to do so. You can estimate average traffic on the LA freeway based upon population, economic activity, lane sizes, and the position of on/off ramps, but you would never expect that model to tell you exactly how bad the traffic will be on any selected Tuesday afternoon.

- Spencer’s measurement period (10 years) is again too short for statistical significance in measuring climate trends. It’s great for evaluating ENSO reproductions, though, and the three models he tested known to best match ENSO variations matched the data quite well.

- Spencer essentially tested for ENSO reproductions, but plotted only the models that fared the worst in that respect, and then claimed his test was for climate sensitivity. The models that actually fit the ENSO lag data had mid-range climate sensitivity, 3.2 and 3.4 C/doubling. Cherry-picking is not a strong enough term for ignoring, for failing to present, the results you calculated that disprove your hypothesis.

In Melbourne on Sunday 18 September I attended “Think Inc”, a conference “about the future”.

Tim Flannery was lead speaker. He is billed as a Climate Scientist.

In response to a question as to why “anti-climate science” was gaining momentum he described sceptics as “anti-science” ex-engineers over 65 years old who learned their trade on slide rules and who “did not understand modelling”.

I suspect that response will never appear on YouTube.

(Neil deGrasse Tyson and Cristina Rad (ZOMGitsCriss of YouTube) saved the occasion from ignominous oblivion. If other readers fell for the $300 VIP pass ripoff and would like to start a class action, please reply).

To state the bleeding obvious yet again (seems you need to on a site like this). Science is complex, because of this the scientific debate occurs via the peer review/publish process. That is how the debate is carried out.

………..So (here we go again)if you have legitimate scientific contributions to make Evans, write it up in a paper (not some toxic blog)and get it published so that real scientists can then respond to it in the normal way. That is how scientific debate is done. Amazing that you don’t know that already. Publicity stunts like Monckton does are not how real science is conducted.

[YAWN: Those who can't find a flaw in the critics scientific arguments scrabble to stop the critics being heard. Evans is just reviewing the peer reviewed literature and coming to the obvious conclusion. He doesn't need permission from the gate-keepers of "peer review" to speak. You need to explain why he's wrong. You can't. --JN]

BTW – Can you tell everyone here what you (and your beloved warmists) believe we should be aiming for as an optimum CO2 concentration level for earth and what a carbon (sic) tax or ETS is going to do to achieve this level?

Second question – What level of CO2 is MINIMUM on the warmists scale – 100ppm, 200ppm or 300ppm? – please advise what you think (if have ANY idea) what level is the minimum level before the earth goes into a tail spin due to LACK OF CO2 (grass/plants et al start dying off)? If all the warmist proposed actions actually cause CO2 concentrations to get close to this proposed level what do you (warmists) plan to do to get it back to todays safe levels in order to prevent earth’s demise?

AGW has made no successful predictions at all; from the QLD floods to the absence of the THS to the ambiguity of whether the Stratosphere is cooling, which KR, the best of the interlopers and sundry AGW ratbags, hangs his hat on; and Hansen!

NONE, ziltch, nana; AGW is a dead duck; but full steam ahead by this wretched government and its TAX.

114 posts and about 2 actually on topic. So here goes with an attempt at some relevant discussion!

As i said in an early post and very well presented piece. I must also say though, that i have never been particularly convinced by the “lack of hot spot” argument. At best it may be an argument for why the models are inadequate but not that the earth is not warming – in fact i made the same comments about the skeptics handbook as well.

I think the other 3 points are quite emphatic and there are many other arguments such as the ones presented by Bob Carter that serve to make the point very clearly. I am not sure why Jo and David continue to push the “lack of hot spot argument”, it seems to be quite open to attack as our friend blvr pointed out in #15. Whether right or wrong it just seems to muddy the waters. Whereas the other points are very black and white and almost impossible to argue against.

I am interested in other peoples view on this (especially jo and david)

You’ve concisely outlined the problem and suggested the only reasonable solution possible.

Demand our government (taxpayer) funded climate scientists make a transparent account of their evidence before a rational inquiry that is nationally televised on the ABC during a prime time slot, perhaps gazumping the 7:30 report for a week, or even a month, if it takes that long.

The format of a public and high-profile debate is what the whole climate change issue begs for! (Note to Climate Change careerists—once the Coalition regains control of parliament a full official inquiry resulting in major ministerial reformation is as sure as Bob’s your uncle, so you might as make your case sooner, because you will be testifying later…)

As Dr. Evans points out, if the science is so settled with all the evidence soundly supporting the CAGW hypothesis, then obviously, a full presentation of that evidence for public scrutiny would snuff out all skeptical opposition once and for all! The Gillard government and the carbon tax could be resurrected from the dead-pollies-walking back to the status of eco-heroes valiantly confronting the greatest moral challenge of our age!

Anything less than a full public account of the facts in a national debate is, therefore, just as obviously, an admission by the climate scientists that they do NOT have enough evidence on their side to feel confident that the CAGW hypothesis could stand a transparent public exposition and debate.

But surely, the government and the climate scientists have all the evidence on their side. We know they do because they have (on the record) promised us that this is the case time and time again. Why, wouldn’t it be criminal for people in official positions of authority to knowingly give false advice which effects the lives and future of every Australian? Surely, our official climate scientists are aware of ALL the research opinion and evidence relating to climatological theory, both pro and con?

Besides, why would anyone want to radically subvert the Australian way of life and hobble the Australian economy if the scientific evidence wasn’t entirely certain that it was necessary to do so in order to Save The Planet?

Bring on the public debate now and crush the climate skeptics with “The Settled Science” once and for all!

I’m on my way to Get Up! right now to submit Dr. Evans debate proposal for consideration as a campaign!

ian@117; the THS is absolutely essential for AGW; simply put: CO2 causes some warming which causes more water to go into the atmosphere and accelerate the initial warming; since most of the water is in the tropics the atmosphere above the tropics should be warming at a more rapid rate then the surface; the THS.

This warming is NOT happening; ergo one of the main pillars of AGW is wrong.

Jimmy got his pal Gavin to concoct some garbage to make it look like nutjob Jimmy was right after all? And this is on Realclimate and you expect anyone here to believe what that bunch of crooks and liars say? One of the temperature series used is their own which they fiddle with and I don’t have much time for HADCRU either based on the bunch of crooks who produce that. BTW by the time the error band is applied ZERO temperature increase was within the error band. Wonderful what you can claim when the error band is wide enough. 2nd BTW: what happened to that Expressway that was going to be underwater by now according to Jimmy boy?

Then you claim that a few random scattered ocean temperature measurements constitute any real evidence of rising ocean heat content and that sea level rise is due to this when there was an ice age 10,000 years ago and what we are seeing is remnant sea level rise from this. It is quite likely the Earth is warming slightly at present. It has done so before, even in this interglacial (heard of the Holocene Climate Optimum, pray tell? Wonder why it was called an “Optimum”?)when humans clearly weren’t the cause. They question is: Are they now? You have nothing but a weak warming based on a simplistic model of infrared absorption by CO2 when CO2 is very minor GHG in the atmosphere anyway.

Pray tell how do you discern the difference between GHG enhanced cooling of the stratosphere and less warming due to lower solar UV? And I see, because of the error bands we can’t be certain the troposphere is not warming. Also means we can’t be certain that it is.

We can measure CO2 quite accurately. I didn’t claim otherwise. Now go and measure the total water vapour content (by far the most prevalent GHG) and get back to me. Radiosonde humidity measurements have quite large error bands. Even the latest Vaisala sondes. Look up the Vaisala site and find out. I did. The other problem you have is a 4D sampling problem as water vapour is highly variable. OK genius, get back to us with your answer. Direct measurements, please. No computer models.

The models are all ultimately statistical models because they have been fitted to a historical dataset, usually the 20th Century or part thereof.

The problem is that there are at least two variables that co-vary over that period: pCO2 and solar output. The latter comprises a small forcing component (TSI direct) and a larger component (magnetic indirect). The TSI component is well understood therefore is fixed in the models.

You then vary the unquantified variable, in this case the feedback multiplier to pCO2 to fit to the chosen data range.

If you leave out a big co-variable, the statistical method (usually least squares) will artificially inflate the other co-variable to force a fit of the model to the data. This works fine.

But the test is when you extrapolate outside the dataset, especially when the neglected variable departs from the other. Then your results go skew-wiff. See Fig 2 of Dr Evans article.

It is pretty clear from a number of sources (eg link, link) that about half of the temperature increase during the 20th C was due to the solar magnetic effects, which you can immediately see if you graph previous solar cycle length vs temperature, or solar equatorial magnetic field strength vs cloudiness. Yet the consensus modellers do not have these as variables in their models. Nor do they have the cyclic effects of ocean oscillations, which contribute about a third of the temperature rise between 1900 and 2000, and about half the increase between 1970 and 2000 because of the selection of those endpoints. That means only 1/6th of 20th C rise is actually due to pCO2 – possibly even less if you look at UHIE as well.

So as an old statistical and computer modeller it is no surprise to me that the IPCC favoured modellers have over-estimated 2XCO2 by a factor of 6, since their software is inflating the feedback sixfold to force pCO2 to cover over the gap left by the two variables they don’t like.

That is just statistics. And science. You can’t spin it, you can’t argue with it. And it says the carbon tax is an unjustifiable lie, QED.

Thanks for the reply, yes i understand the theory. But that is not really the point. The hypothesis is that man made CO2 causes global temperature increase. Full Stop. The irrefutable data therefore is data that shows
- the relationship between CO2 and T
- the levels of CO2 emitted by man
- the relationship between CO2 concentration and heat absorption
etc, ie direct measurable phenomena

The argument about the hot spot moves away from data to theory or mechanisms. As soon as we do that we get into endless debates with warmists about theory and whist we scientists may well be able to score victories, my experience with these types of arguments is that they are never really settled and the general public will never understand or be capable or seeing the truth. The net result is that the debate remains and the alarmist campagign continues. I feel we should stick to the simple measurable facts that are more than sufficent to torpedo the alarmist argument anyway.

Regarding water vapor concentrations, I would point you at Turner et al 2002, Solomon et al 2010 (which, incidentally, notes stratospheric decreases of water vapor since 2000, which they estimate slowed warming 25% over what happened in the 20 years previous to that), Ross et al 2001, Trenberth 2005 (nice overview of the uncertainties involved), and the basic capabilities of Google Scholar.

Back to the original post: my reply @87 stands (in my opinion), none of the four arguments Dr. Evans presents holds water. The accompanying “Scam” accusations are such that I’m not surprised any scientist worth his while feels that a rational discussion is impossible.

The challenge to a ‘debate’ is really quite interesting. Science is not resolved by debates – that’s the realm of politics, of rhetoric. Science is resolved by data, not by the fastest talker. The ‘debates’ I have witnessed relevant to scientific topics end up with one side performing a Gish Gallop, presenting so many half-truths, untruths, distortions, and outright howlers in a paragraph that a rational response would take a book chapter to point out how wrong each point was. Just not worthwhile…

I suspect, though, that Professor Andy Pitman might be willing to participate in a written conversation – where he would have a chance to examine the (written) questions, reply accurately (to the best of his knowledge), and clearly. Would Dr. Evans be interested in such an exchange?

Just about everyone, warmists included, agrees that doubling CO2 will result in around one deg of warming based on the simplistic modeling(likely wrong in the real atmosphere). Nobody is worried about that.
The alarm is over H2O feedback effects and what sign and how large they are. The Mid troposphere hot spot is the signature of the predicted water vapour feedback. If it is absent, no significant positive H20 feed back, no dangerous warming. It really is the core of the argument. That’s why Lindzen and Choi, Spencer and Braswell attract the warmists ire as they demonstrate ever lower bounds on the feedback estimates.

Gayndah in Queensland has an a very good range of temperature records from 1890ish to current date and it is out in the bush. I would like to draw everyone’s attention to the period around 1900. Look at the maximum tempratures far in excess of what we have now and for a very long period over almost 12 years except for an unusual cool if you could call it that in the middle. I find it fascinating that we could be complain about the heat waves in the 90′s when there is clear evidence that it has been hotter in the past.

The trend seems to be cyclical so I draw from that man has no influence over the climate !

I think this is another nail in CAGW coffin but it might not be enough evidence to sway the alarmists.

Good luck with the submission and if can I will send it to a few friends.

I followed your link to the “cartoon” of the time history of CO2 concentration.

I note the vertical scale that STARTS at 330ppm and a timescale that STARTS at 1980.

Then you did not play the video, which shows CO2 concentrations over the last 800,000 years, showing a CO2 range of 165 to >390. You might find it interesting – and my comment was with regard to the entire timeline, not just the last few years.

KR, here’s a little quote from Ross and Elliot: “To compensate partially for these shortcomings over the longer period, we used the 850-mb specific humidity as a surrogate for total column water vapor changes. The choice of surrogate was based on correlations between W and other humidity variables that are summarized in section 3. However, the 850-mb level is not immune to inhomogeneities.”

“Summing up, the instrumentation and observations are not very good and we have to make wild arsed guesses about all sorts of things.”

I’ve studied worked in academia. I can translate.

Now get back to us with a best estimate of how well you can measure the global atmospheric water vapour content over time. I’ll be surprised if it is as good as 1% because I’d have trouble doing that for a humidity measurement in this room right now without some fairly cumbersome equipment. Even that might not do it as moving the equipment in and running it would probably introduce errors.

the science makes no difference. even the Coalition’s Greg Hunt, in a piece i posted yesterday, is looking forward to trading in CO2 emissions. never mind the following:

21 Sept: Earthtimes: Dale Kiefer: CO2 emissions rising sharply despite cutbacks among industrialised nations
CO2 emissions rose by 45% between 1990 and 2010, reaching an historic peak of 33 billion tonnes of manmade CO2 spewed into the atmosphere in 2010. This occurred despite cutbacks by industrialized nations working diligently to meet reduction targets outlined by the Kyoto Protocol…
The present report noted that industrialised nations are likely to reach the 5.2% reduction target collectively, due in part to concerted reduction efforts, and in part to the effects of the global economic recession…
The increase in CO2 emissions continues to be caused primarily by power generation and road transportation, which account for 40% and 15%, respectively, of emissions…http://www.earthtimes.org/pollution/co2-emissions-rising-sharply-cutbacks-industrialised-nations/1396/

what the MSM does not report is always more telling than the alarmist, unverified CAGW rubbish they do report daily. the above plus the following 3 links are the only coverage of the increase in CO2 emissions in a google search, and none are MSM, unless UPI’s piece gets published eventually:

21 Sept: Reuters: No EU CO2 link to emerging nations before 2020 – study
Emissions trading schemes in emerging economies will not be mature enough to link to the EU’s carbon market before 2020, making it even more important for global climate talks to extend and improve U.N. carbon offset schemes, a study said…
“It can be assumed that at least until 2020, climate policy even in many of the rapidly industrialising developing countries will mainly revolve around non-emissions trading scheme policies and measures,” the study said.
“International climate cooperation should therefore not neglect improving the CDM (Clean Development Mechanism) and supporting transformational policies and measures through fund-based instruments,” it added…
Speculators piled into the EU ETS in its earlier days, expecting the United States to implement national emissions trading legislation which could be linked to the EU scheme, eventually creating a trillion dollar market.
Many of them exited the EU ETS when this failed to materialise.http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/09/21/idINIndia-59473020110921

let me repeat, if your Super is in high risk investments, be very very careful. you can change to a Cash Option and change back again when the financial climate is more settled. after all….

21 Sept: Marketwatch: Brett Arends: Why the insiders have quit buying stocks
Commentary: The ratio of insider sales to purchases has jumped
Something ominous is happening on Wall Street, but nobody has noticed.
The insiders have vanished.
Chief executives. Board members.
The head honchos. The people who know.
Just a few weeks ago, they were out in force, buying up shares in their own companies with both hands.
No longer. They’ve disappeared. Almost overnight.
“They’ve stopped buying,” says Charles Biderman, the chief executive of stock market research firm TrimTabs”…
Insider stock purchases, which surged above $100 million a day in the market slump last month, have now collapsed to just $13 million a day.
Meanwhile the ratio of insider sales to purchases has skyrocketed. Today insiders are dumping $7 in stock for each $1 that (other) insiders are buying. That’s a worrying ratio. Six weeks ago the amounts of purchases and sales were about equal.
It’s the kind of news that should give investors pause.
What insiders do with their own money is one of the stock market’s best barometers
After all, who better than company executives know their own order books? Who knows the conditions in their industry better?
You find insiders typically buying heavily at the market lows — they did in 1987, in 1998, and they did during the financial crisis in 2008-9.
(You also typically find them cashing out big-time at the peak).http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-the-insiders-have-quit-buying-stocks-2011-09-21

Yes i understand the mechanism and the theory and it makes sense. But my point is that i think it is
a. difficult for the average person (non scientist) to understand
b. easy for a climate scientist to argue against by bringing up arguments like the adiabatic lapse rate etc etc. Whether they are right or wrong it doesnt matter – they just cloud the issue.

The argument about there being no positive feedback can be extracted by looking at direct temperature vs CO2 measurements. It is blindingly obvious to scientists and the common man that there is nothing going on.

KR – you’ve now given me this mental picture of the prophets Al and his brother Jimmy parting the waters of the Potomac, saying ‘let my people go’ as all the green lobbyists escape DC in 2013.

The vision fails though, as Pharaoh Perry and the tea partiers on their chariots are more likely to say OK, p*ss off then, rather than give chase. Also Jimmy and Al may have problems tripping over all the old car bodies crossing the river bottom.

KR, Jim Hansen made a prediction to a journalist about 20 years ago about that Expressway being underwater by now due to rising sea levels. I believe it isn’t so rack up another failed prediction from that nutcase.

ian, the no positive feedback case isn’t blindingly obvious at all. That’s why Lindzen, Spencer et al are trying to make the case for what it actually is. I’m of the opinion the whole thing is just a storm in a teacup and that we don’t have good enough observations to make any really definitive statements about exactly how much the temperature has risen over the last few hundred years, if it has risen at all. We’re inside the noise. I don’t have much faith in the surface temperature record. I know how it is done. I helped collect a small part of it.

RC have not covered themselves with glory. I know what they’ve been covering themselves with but I won’t say in polite company. As we’ve been saying, West Side Highway ain’t under 16′ of polluted sewage effluent, nor is the temperature anywhere near Scenario C. You pays your prophet you gets your snake oil.

Graham Redfearn turns up on SMH, with Stephen Robertson announcing another poison pill policy (judging by the negative comments below the article):

22 Sept: SMH: Graham Redfearn: A mighty wind shaping Queensland’s energy future
Five major projects costing more than $2 billion are being planned that could increase the state’s wind-generated electricity more than 100-fold…
But Queensland Energy Minister Stephen Robertson told brisbanetimes.com.au if all the planned projects go ahead, the state would have about 1500 megawatts of wind power.
The largest project is the 750 megawatt Kennedy Wind Farm being planned by Windlab near Hughenden, 290 kilometres southwest of Townsville, costing $1.5 billion.
Windlab chief operating officer Luke Osborne said the company hoped to submit a planning application to Flinders Shire Council as early as December…
He (Osborne) said the project would bring in $80 million for the local economy and create 240 jobs during construction and 40 full-time jobs once it was built…
The project hopes to connect to the grid through the CopperString project – a 1000-kilometre high voltage electricity line being proposed between Mount Isa and Woodstock, near Townsville.
Energy company AGL has plans for two wind farms – at Crows Nest, 40 kilometres north of Toowoomba, and at Coopers Gap, between Dalby and Kingaroy…
The project would provide enough electricity to power 150,000 Queensland homes.
Two wind farms are also being planned by company RATCH-Australia, which has submitted development proposals to the Tablelands Regional Council in north Queensland.
RATCH chief executive Steve Loxton said the company wanted to progress the projects “to the point that we can make a final investment decision”…
Mr Robertson said the state’s Office of Clean Energy was preparing to release a new plan to develop the renewable energy industry…http://www.smh.com.au/environment/a-mighty-wind-shaping-queenslands-energy-future-20110921-1kktw.html

no mention of how much public money is involved in the above, or this:

anyone care to work out how much each of the 40 permanent jobs will cost, or how feasible it is that 1500 megawatts of electricity will be generated to power those 150,000 homes? Redfearn didn’t consider it necessary to ask any of the important questions, and Fairfax are happy to have a “mighty wind” story, i guess.

Jimmy got his pal Gavin to concoct some garbage to make it look like nutjob Jimmy was right after all? And this is on Realclimate and you expect anyone here to believe what that bunch of crooks and liars say? One of the temperature series used is their own which they fiddle with and I don’t have much time for HADCRU either based on the bunch of crooks who produce that.

Actually, Mike, all the temperature data sets are quite similar in terms of trends, with the notable outlier of the UAH data set (the lowest of all temperature trends – but of course, not a cherry-pick, now is it?). The satellite data sets are more sensitive to volcanoes and ENSO (Mount Pinatubo, anyone?), and hence vary where the surface data does not, but they all show just similar results.

The misrepresentation in the original post concerns using a single outlier satellite tropospheric record to compare to a surface temperature prediction (apples and oranges), with what is obviously a single-point baseline rather than an alignment over any reasonable period of time.

KR at #145
Yes, there’s not a great deal wrong with the temperature datasets (although GISS’s is distorted by their unconscionable 1250 km smoothing of coastal temps all over the Arctic basin).

No, the problem is the models don’t explain the temperature apart from the interpolation range they are fitted to.

You’ve all seen that pSCL plus PDO plus Lindzenesque 2XCO2 fits temperature not only for the last half century but for the full 250 year plus time series of the CET. When the GCM’s can match that I might look twice at them, but for them to be able to do that they have to actually address reality like solar magnetism, GCR’s and oceans. You know – those wet things between the continents and that hot thing in the sky.

“The misrepresentation in the original post concerns using a single outlier satellite tropospheric record to compare to a surface temperature prediction (apples and oranges), with what is obviously a single-point baseline rather than an alignment over any reasonable period of time. ”

Well said KR.

Mike in 142 you are right, if I’d taken time to read all 100+ comments I’d have known that KR and others had already exposed Dr Evan’s opinions as being of the loopy variety.

The developed world will nearly flatline for decades while all the increase in emissions will come from the developing world, just look at the numbers. This isn’t rocket science but simple primary school maths.

So Matt b and KR should head for China and India etc and argue your case there. That’s if you believe in this mad theory in the first place, but of couse there has been nothing unusual or unprecedented with the temp or climate over the last 100+ years.

MattB @ 141:
A little wishful thinking there? Even using GISS data as they did, their graph clearly shows the ACTUAL data falling well short of scenario A. B and C included a large volcanic eruption scenario as well as GHG reductions compared to business-as-usual. Look at their own graph for goodness sakes:

No way, no how is the black or red data series anywhere near scenario A (green). And this, as I said before, using the much maligned GISS data sets. The only way you could say green is in the same ball park as the actual data is by including massive error bars – if errors of that magnitude exist, then the models are worthless anyway and should be tossed out.

Hansen’s models are not God’s truth, no one but a pure advocate would pretend they tracked well against reality. They are as useful as the Treasury’s carbon (dioxide) price modelling … GIGO.

Re: My comment about it being blindingly obvious there is no positive feedback.

How can there be when
a. The temperature has not risen for the last 10 years,
b. The rate of temperature change has not increased which it must do if there is positive feedback
c. No evidence exists in the hstory of the planet that show increasing levels of CO2 (man made or not) have led to an accelerative effect on global temperature
d. There is a logorithmic effect of CO2 conc on wavelength absortion

As i said earlier, i just think getting into the mechanisms of how it may happen is interesting and worthy of discussion, but should not form a part of our argument because it is unnecesaary and leads to confusion for those that we need to be non-confused (ie the general public not us scientists).

Bulldust – A, B and C are scenarios, not predictions. You need to know which scenario’s GHG levels matched actual. Saying/implying something like scenario A is Hansen’s prediction is a fundamentan untruth, if not a downright lie.

Oh Hi BLVR, Sorry folks someone on WUWT advised him to come to Jo’s site and help Adam
with his science…. He’s had a proper licking on WUWT. They happen to have some pretty smart folk who know their ‘sums’ like on this site too.

David it was a great report. Submissions have been sent to the appropriate government
select committee and now the big one is, only rumour but a good one, big money is prepared to fund a High Court case against the government regarding the carbon tax.

Although they put in a disclaimer on their Critical Decade I wonder how they will go stating on oath the same thing, when a legislation is passed. Seems there are amendments that were given to the opposition just one day before a meeting. It included fuel? Well when the Opposition have time to review these amendments, maybe they can show it to the Independents Oakshott and Windsor and ask them ‘Did you agree with this’ and also the clause ‘curb methane emissions from livestock’ – I asked Tony Windsor how they intended going about this, but he didn’t or so far reply.

In presenting a summation of the science of CO2 as followup to my comments at 150 the following is graphic.

It gives a sense of proportion to claims about the effects of human origin CO2 on the atmospheric temperature and involves worst case assumptions which mean the figures quoted are a max for human attribution.

IF

If world atmospheric temperature rose by 0.6 C degrees over the last 150 years.

And if Greenhouse gases are the only cause of this rise.

And if human origin CO2 is to be taken to account.

THEN.

Our part of the worlds green house gas effect is 0.0009 C degrees of the temperature rise.

The rest is nature.

Likewise we are responsible for 0.0045 mm of the annual 3mm ocean increase.

Over 100 years we would cause 0.45 mm sea rise.

Holy Crap Batman.

We’ve been had by the IPCC.

It’s not exactly what you were looking at but the figures are not really debatable. That is the extent of our maximum historical “damage” to the environment.

Dr Evans calls for a debate, but the warmists refuse. On Counterpoint, Peter Saunders critiques a “left-wing” sociology book by Wilkinson. Note the similarity in response:

Saunders: Yes, we did have one debate last year at the Royal Society of Arts in London, and Christopher Snowdon, another of the critics, and myself debated with Wilkinson and Pickett, and I like to think that we won that debate. You can actually find that online if you’re interested in it. And since then Wilkinson has just pulled up the drawbridge and said, well, these people are not experts. He said at one point, ‘If I had a problem with the plumbing I’d call a professional plumber, I wouldn’t call somebody who didn’t have a proper plumbing qualification, and why therefore should I debate these issues with these amateur right-wing hooligans?’ And it’s really quite insulting. Wilkinson is actually a former colleague of mine, we were both at the University of Sussex many years ago, and Wilkinson knows full well that I’m just as qualified as he is to talk about these issues. But he is using that as a pretext for refusing to debate it any more.

Sorry, I didn’t want to blow trumpets. See my comment #97 at the link.

As to Dana’s piece at SS, well I think using a Lindzen line from 1989 “the entire record would more likely be saying that the rise is 0.1 degree plus or minus 0.3 degree” to calculate a value of 2XCO2 of 0.3 C while ignoring his peer reviewed paper of 2011 is like buying 22 year old car today at the price of a 2011 model and expecting better performance. Lindzen made no prophesies in that speech, it was Dana who claimed he did – but Dr Hansen on the other hand was quite specific in 1988 about future temperatures (see Fig 1 above).

But to further quote from the very same speech from 1989, Prof Lindzen says:

“We don’t know how to calculate cloudiness,” Professor Lindzen said. Some studies have found that the dominant radiative effect of clouds is cooling. Only a few percent change in cloud cover will more than swamp the estimated CO2 effect, he suggested. In the current models, for reasons that puzzle almost everyone, the cloud feedbacks are positive rather than negative. That is, they increase the temperature.”

Right then and still right now regarding the models, although papers in the last few months are getting a grip on this problem. Of course the IPCC and their modellers don’t want to know.

And yes, the model I use takes them into account via the Svensmark mechanism. Dana uses the same general premise as I do, except he leaves off the solar effect and everything else except CO2, so no wonder the calculated curve is so flat. As I said solar magnetic + TSI explains half or even more of the temperature variation. How much is that? Well, the trend line for the CET is 0.24 C rise per century. And Dana says:

His warming trend of approximately 0.01°C to 0.02°C per decade is 90 to 95% too low.

Well compared to 0.024 C/decade in the CET temperature dataset since 1659, while purposely leaving out the main variable worth half the variance, I would say he wasn’t so far out. Half of 0.024 is of course 0.012…

But tell me again how close is the West Side Highway to being 16′ underwater by 2030? Is it half way there yet?

As to GCR’s correlation to life the universe and everything I draw your attention to Fig 2 of the paper by Prof Rao. Pretty close. Clouds are correlated to temperature now are they not? Of course Prof Rao is only the most celebrated scientist in India and an astrophysicist specialising in GCR’s so what would he know?

Because of the Greens religious belief in the “CO2 is a pollutant that will cause catastrophic climate change” the coal gas seam (CSG) industry has come back and bitten them on the you know where!! The CSG people claim gas is less of a pollutant than coal and therefore will cause less climate change – the fact that the drilling in the CSG business totally f**ks the water table and the environment appears to mean nothing as I here Alan Jones fighting the CSG industry but the Greens have been quiet!! – they have been hoisted by their own petard.

Do you think you just made a point? You don’t even know what you are saying. Scenarios are predictions (forecasts) made by a model, with the incorporated assumptions impacting the model parameters. Clearly mankind did not make the drastic cuts in emissions implied by scenarios B and C, hence the models do NOT accurately reflect reality. Or perhaps you think Hansen’s models are accurate and the data should be adjusted to match his version of reality? If the latter, then you are so far off the scientific reservation that debating the issue with you is an exercise in futility.

Perhaps you forgot that I spent a fair bit of time in my Master’s doing econometrics, modelling and forecasting techniques? I do understand the basic premise of modelling whatever the field. Climate Science modelling is no different to any other field in regard to these fuindamental aspects.

My parents live in Andorra, and I visit about once per year. Some of the locals are still involved in traditional industries, but the majority are in service industries, especially those that cater to the “day tourists” that come in from France and Spain to buy electronics, fashion, jewellry etc.

There is no income tax, but they do have a low sales tax and the Government also makes money from land sales (a rapidly diminishing stock). They may have to find alternative taxation sources in the near to medium term future, but I haven’t looked into their fiscal situation in any detail.

Compared to their neighbours, the Andorrans do pretty well. According to Wikipedia their unemployment rate was 2.9% in 2009, and bear in mind they also have a lot of guest workers from neighbouring countries. Read more about the country here:

Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005, and part-time to the Department of Climate Change from 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University.

has overlaid a troposphere temperature graph on a surface temp prediction? Do we only acknowledge the mistakes of those who promote CAGW here? Is that what skeptics do?

Bulldust @165 and MattB @156
If the scenarios Hansen provides aren’t predictive, then what possible other purpose do they serve, for the millions of dollars flushed down the S bend to fund them? I bet Hansen picks his Melbourne Cup winners on the first Wednesday in November. 20/20 hindsight.

I’ll elaborate now on my post at 164. Was occupied watching the debate between Lambert and Monckton. Lambert implied that ARGO might be mistaken. What a laugh!

The Greens were nowhere to be seen on CSG extraction until they were made aware that the extraction created more of that lovely CO2 than they previously thought. The main driver of the objection is the Friends of the Earth. I’m dubious of Foes’ intent and now question the degree of their claims…being a sceptic.

I see the Greens tactic of introducing the Bill, it is basically to over ride the states in an attempt to gain central control. That is why the coalition will not back the Bill.

Been very active on this, had a meeting at Parliament House after the Convoy. Received interesting correspondence and am pushing for a Moratorium based on the possible effects to the Great Artesian Basin. This would imply that it is no longer a state issue, which then becomes a Federal issue.

I’m not totally convinced, either way. There has to be an independent scientific study to determine the true effects. Too much noise out there to understand the truth of the matter.

I see no temperature graphs. I only see temperature anomaly graphs. So if the ST temperature anomaly rises 0.5 C why wouldn’t the LT anomaly rise about that much?

We’re talking elephants and mice here, and the mice are on the side of the CO2. It ain’t that hard.

Look I’ve been in science thirty years and been a modeller for 20 (I used to have to wait ’till 5 pm to use the only IBM AT in the building to run models overnight). They just don’t have the right variables. And when pressure forces them to include all the right variables they will find derived 2XCO2 plummeting to around the values from direct satellite measurement…wait for it, of back radiation from the LT.

If it doesn’t add up it doesn’t add up, no amount of smooging will make it so. Dr Hansen was wrong on his climate sensitivity value and wrong to leave out solar magnetic and ocean cyclic effects. He’s dug himself such a hole now he can’t back out unfortunately. I hope he has a nice place to retire to when pink slip arrives on his desk.

I will correct myself slightly – ST can rise MORE than LT anomaly because of cute furry beast called UHIE. Dose annoying city places seem stuck on the surface, and dem silly weather types keep on putting Stevenson Screens next to aircon outlets and big black strips of tarmac with big aeroplane thingies on.

The trouble Tristan, is if the discrepancy is due to UHIE then no amount of abating CO2 will make the slightest difference, and the carbon tax would STILL be a lie.

There are different ways in which models can be used. I made a very simple one to simulate bracket creep, for example. Given we know the tax tables for last year and this year, you assume your salary in both years and it will give an exact result of bracket creep. Obviously it is only as good as the input (your salary assumptions), but otherwise the model should predict the outcomes exactly (barring the Feds changing tax tables again for the 2011-12 year – a new levy for example).

The problem with more complex models of the economy, is that a lot more assumptions have to be made about the parameters and estimates of the economic relationships between different variables. Some can be estimated with reasonable accuracy, but other parameters are flat out assumptions (e.g. will country X introduce internationally tradeable carbon permits). The more parameters that have to be estimated and the more assumptions made, obviously the greater the uncertainty of the forecasts.

I would argue that most outputs from complex models such as the Government’s carbon (dioxide) tax modelling are completely meaningless. There are way too many assumptions and estimates to make such models useful for predicting long-range forecasts of anything. The system is simply too complex and poorly understood, and exconomists have been modelling a heck of a lot longer than climate scientists. The difference is that we are usually a tad more honest about our uncertainties over such forecasts.

Now clearly there are differences between climate and economic modelling, but many of the inherent problems of complex systems are similar. One can’t pretend for a second to be serious when talking about climate forecasts in 50 or 100 years… that is patent BS. Anyone who peddles those kinds of model forecasts cannot be taken seriously.

How many public service climate zombies are now assigned to this blog as spoilers on behalf of the Department of Climate Change, uni climate science faculties, the federal Labor ministry, the Australian Greens and the local IPCC pets to ensure that anything which demands empirical evidence for alarmism is obfuscated, denialised, distracted and confused and to defend the rivers of government gold we’re spending to keep the 1990 CAGW hypothesis alive? Something big must be happening in Canberra because I’ve never seen so many zombies flooding this blog to attempt to block out the sound of an empire collapsing. For a while, MattyB was terribly alone: now he has a small army of public service zombies standing shoulder-to-shoulder with him, attempting to hold back the floodgates in lackofevidenceville. Well done, Jo and David.

“Anyone who peddles those kinds of model forecasts cannot be taken seriously.”

That deals with the peddlers but perhaps the believing disciples should be taken seriously……. say by the various national mental health authorities. Something like the distinction made between drug dealers and drug users.

MaryFJohnston, you are over-reacting and illogical. No-one can be mislead by a question. My personal view is that the post would be improved if the item about “direct evidence” of human-produced global warming were removed because I don’t think direct evidence can ever be available. But I might be wrong so I asked the question.

And I think it would be further improved if references to “disproving the AGW theory” were either removed or tightened up to, at least, “disproving the CAGW theory”. But David Evans may prefer this formulation so I offered my opinion. He is free, as you are to ignore it.

Yes, I did watch the whole of the cartoon and sorry, I disagree with the content. See here for levels that disagree with what the video purports.

Irrespective of the “cartoon” you have NOT answered the other questions I asked (and I’m still waiting).

This is typical of warmists style though isn’t it? This is the WHOLE jist of this blog. Warmists only seem able to SPIN – sounds like the whole of the goverment at the moment – NEVER answer a question and just blame Abbott for EVERYTHING.

I agree with you that : “”“… I don’t think direct evidence can ever be available.”"

Back in 94 you said: “”If it’s in principle impossible to distinguish a human contribution then nothing is proved by saying it can’t be seen.”"

My comment about this at 105 was a bit rough around the edges; there was even a line out of place that was probably obvious.

The point I should have stated more clearly was this: We agree that there is not going to be any direct “evidence” of human CO2 effect but I can’t extend that to say that you cant “distinguish” the human contribution from the total effect.

It is a relatively simple calculation to separate out the human CO2 component of the GHG effect of all global warming. It’s just that Climate Change scientists don’t want to ever have anyone know how mall the human contribution is.

I’ve done a sample calculation for the historical period from 1850 to 2000 to quantify our collective guilt ; see 158 and 159.

Sorry if I misjudged, there are a lot of Smith Family etc trying to split hairs that are irrelevant but nicely conceal the real issues.

Well, my comment at #41, to which you are responding was a probe. I wanted to see how you would respond.

You are obviously a paid word-hack, but not a particularly knowledgeable one. Not a potential “Canberra’s got Talent” contestant, sorry.

For example, you take my comment about legal drafting and focus on the final preparation stage – which, as you should know, is just the tip of the iceberg in the overall policy design, consultation, budgeting, development process. Also, you attempt to link the legislation to the policy announcement in a bizarre inverse cause/effect relationship. Nobody makes a policy announcement before they start designing the policy. People who know what they are doing make sure that they are confident that the required legislation is at least workable. By this slip, you confirms my first statement.

Of course, you are correct in saying that the “drafting” is done by a dedicated department. And in my experience, legal drafters are a very dedicated bunch, but they need a detailed policy to work from. They do not make things up. The drafters do not make the law. I specifically used the term “drafted” in the context I did (implying a small “d”), rather than the word “prepared”, to see if you would seize on it , and use it as an opportunity for rebuttal. You did, rather than address my main point about the Greens. Epic fail!

In the next comment you fasten on the word “drafted” (with a small “d”) to avoid commenting on the back-room dealing that went on to form the ALP/Green coalition. That ploy doesn’t fool anybody, and in fact the gaping hole left by the lack of a comment, only serves to highlight the fact that it is something people “on the inside” don’t talk about in polite company.

Your question about Abbott is a total red herring. I would absolutely charge Abbot if he had made the back-room deal I allege Gillard has made. It is the clandestine collusion that is the problem here, not the perpetrators.

Also, making the distinction between a tax and a mandatory surcharge on the consumption of (or production of) a necessary commodity is simply splitting hairs too fine. It is another red herring (you must like oily fish). A tax is any transfer of wealth from the population to the government by way of legislation (Pol. Sci. 101). Calling a tax something else does not stop it being a tax, in the same way that painting lipstick on a pig, doesn’t stop it being a pig.

Finally, you accuses me of, “trashing the country, and talking down our entire economy simply because you don’t like the Prime Minister”. At first, I thought you were flattering me with having the power to talk down a whole economy, all by myself. But then I realised that it was all about the Prime Minister, and whether or not I liked her.

Well let me set you straight on that. I dislike her no more, and no less than I dislike any other politician. She is nice enough, but has a limp handshake, a bit like a cold fish really (or another red herring, if you would prefer).

So Adam Smith, if you want to debate with the big boys, I suggest you stay on topic, and remain polite (which you do, by the way) but avoid playing games – nobody here thinks they are clever – in fact nobody outside the debating chamber thinks playing games is clever, especially when those games are being played with our money.

But the issue is far deeper and comes to the credibility of all of science.
Science has never had a fair shake from the beginning being shaped by the society of the day. Many areas are missed or fluffed off as having no value.
Which area of science or mathematics is responsible for measuring the circumference of the sun, planet, etc and show there is a speed difference due to the motion and shape?
Who explores the origin of salt considering it is on the surface of the planet in every region?
What is the purpose of so much salt and where did it come from?

Our perception are generated by others theories who we deem as experts for our best interest in furthering our knowledge.
Who looks to see that all parameters were explored and included?
Who has the authority to point out mistakes?

Take the CERN collider. It is suppose to be exploring the origins of creation by using proxies of molecules to recreate the BIG BANG.
Yet they are using material that totally rotates differently from planets and suns.
Is this going to give a good representation of actual events?

Much of science is incorrect due to the shaping and individualizing the areas separately and having theories that cannot be challenged as the arrogance of scientists say they are absolute in correct.
Considering they do admit to some uncertainty.

Ocasionally drop in here to view the debate. O/T but further to yr comments I work in the oil and gas patch (including CSG)

1. We dont take water from the water table. Most reservoirs are at 400m plus, way below
2. We dont touch acquifers – the TDS levels are not acquifer quality and couldnt be used for anything other than stock. Since 2006 any co produced water has to be treated.
3. The real issue is whether or not the coal measures where permeable are feeding the Hutton (Great Artesian)in the Surat or Gunnedah basins. No evidence that is the case but further monitoring is required
4. This is a massive greens beat up. they dont like new cheap fossil fuels as it is an affront to their idea of renewable nirvana.
5. Wait still shale gas gets going, that will get them really hot under the collar.

A wind farm at Cooper’s Gap between Dalby and Kingaroy? That should kill plenty of wedgetail eagles. They are quite prolific over the Bunyas. I’ve shared many a thermal with them while in a sailplane. Never had a problem, they are well mannered in thermals and it is awesome to fly with them. This wind farm is sad news.

(blvr @11)
A debate would be interesting, if not necessary, as it’s about putting things into perspective for the general public/layperson, about swaying public’s views. So it’d be more interesting if it’s not scientists vs scientists, but between entertaining clever politicians/spokespersons (e.g Lord Monckton vs … whoever good debator from the AGW side). But I’m afraid it would be an endless, if not pointless, debate because there are still a lot of uncertainties surrounding the science. The CO2 driven warming is certain, but how much (in the recent past and in the next decades) etc. Given a certain projected warming with uncertain magnitude, and assuming our output of CO2 is going to increase into the future as driven by demand, I think a useful debate would be from the perspectives of economy, the details surrounding the carbon tax, what’s the risk in hurting the economy, how it will benefit everyone in the short term and long term, etc.., how it can move our society toward better adaptability to climate variability (whether anthropogenic or natural). Is it going to be a win win option? are there any better options? I find the picture is still not very clear in this regard, at least from the layman point of view.

Firstly, since the projected forcings started in 1984, that should be the starting year for any analysis,

AGW supposedly kicked off post-war 11 and the ‘control’ for Hansen’s predictions was 1959; starting in 1984 means the starting point is above the base period for GISS, RC’s preferred series of random rubbish; since that base is 1951-1980, a cooler period, this will give GISS a higher anomaly as this shows:

But then RC matches Hansen’s predictions with forcings in Figure 1; that is ridiculous because those forcings are the very issue with it now plain since Spencer and Braswell 2011 that AGW science would not know the difference between a forcing and a feedback if it bit them.

It is a relatively simple calculation to separate out the human CO2 component of the GHG effect of all global warming. It’s just that Climate Change scientists don’t want to ever have anyone know how mall the human contribution is.

That’s very interesting MJ. There are lots of ways to disprove the notion that atmospheric CO2 will lead to catastrophic global warming in excess of 3C on a doubling of atmospheric CO2 as often claimed by the IPCC. The simplest and most logically water-tight argument I have seen is as follows. The volumetric mass fraction of atmospheric CO2 is 0.039% (390ppmv) and the volumetric mass fraction of water vapour (WV) is about 1% (10,000ppmv). Therefore atmospheric CO2 by volume only makes up, at maximum, 4% of the entire atmospheric greenhouse. Furthermore it has been shown experimentally (Hottel 1954) that WV has an emissivity of 0.4 at a partial pressure of 0.05atm (50,000pmmv) and CO2 has an emissivity of 0.003 at a partial pressure of 0.6atm (600,000ppmv). Therefore WV has an absorptance potential that is greater than CO2 by a factor of 4. Hence atmospheric CO2 only contributes about 1% to the entire atmospheric greenhouse (i.e. 96%x4 = 384%/4 = 1). It is generally accepted that the entire atmospheric greenhouse from all sources increases the surface temperature by 33C above its blackbody temperature of -18C. Therefore the atmospheric CO2 component contributes only 0.33C (i.e. 1% of 33C) to the entire planetary greenhouse. That’s all 390ppmv of it. There are so many ways to show that the atmospheric CO2 is a bit-player and not a temperature-driver as asserted by alarmists. The one above is one of the simplest. There are numerous others. Those that suggest otherwise will usually point to computer models such as MODTRAN and HITRAN. Computer models that have never been independently verified and fly the face of established physics.

As to Dana’s piece at SS, well I think using a Lindzen line from 1989 “the entire record would more likely be saying that the rise is 0.1 degree plus or minus 0.3 degree” to calculate a value of 2XCO2 of 0.3 C while ignoring his peer reviewed paper of 2011 is like buying 22 year old car today at the price of a 2011 model and expecting better performance.

Unfortunately, Lindzen 1989 is almost indistinguishable (with the exception of the dropping of the ‘iris’ hypothesis) from Lindzen et al 2009 or Lindzen et al 2010, and yes, I’ve read them.

You are, I believe, correct that Lindzen did not put forth a prediction – but his climate sensitivity estimate (echoed in 2009 and 2010) does lead to the prediction values discussed above.

—

The GCR hypothesis is very interesting, and the recent CERN experiments worth looking at. However, there does not appear to be any way for the GCR’s to account for more than a tiny bit of temperature change, and they do not match temperature changes over the last 40-50 years. I don’t know where Rao gets his data – Lockwood 2007 looked at any number of possible solar influences (including magnetically mediated GCR’s) and concludes that they simply are changing in the wrong direction to account for the last 40 years – we should be cooling instead of warming.

—

Mike Borgelt @ 128

Santer 2007 is one of the more comprehensive references on water vapor that I’ve read – the estimated increase in water vapor is 6-7.5% / degree C of warming, and satellite observations match that.

Terminology: “…catastrophic global warming…” is a Strawman argument, a logical fallacy, that I only see on ‘skeptic’ blogs. I expect climate change to be expensive, painful even, but “catastrophic” is just an exaggeration for rhetorical purposes.

There are so many ways to show that the atmospheric CO2 is a bit-player and not a temperature-driver as asserted by alarmists. The one above is one of the simplest. There are numerous others. Those that suggest otherwise will usually point to computer models such as MODTRAN and HITRAN. Computer models that have never been independently verified and fly the face of established physics.

Unfortunately, Chip, volumetric mass fractions are not the relevant issue – spectral responses are. CO2 represents ~1/3 the GHG effect as measured, water vapor most of the remainder. O2 and N2 represent almost zero, as they are not spectrally absorptive in thermal radiation wavelengths. Your fractions are nonsense as a result.

That, incidentally, represents the “established physics”.

So: CO2 represents ~1/3 the GHG effect, and we’ve increased it from 280 to 394 ppm, with a lot more on the way. That has an effect…

If you want your objections to the science to be taken seriously, it would be helpful if your objections had an actual scientific basis. Your post @190 does not.

My apologies, you are completely correct, typing off the top of my head I had the wrong ratios – CO2 should be 9%-26%, depending on humidity. Water vapor runs from 36–70%, again dependent upon humidity.

So – taking the average at ~18%, ~1/5 the greenhouse effect is directly due to CO2. Which, if you take the total 33C warmer the Earth is over a theoretic non-greenhouse gas Earth, the greenhouse effect is just under 5 C for CO2 alone. And we’ve increased CO2 by 30% over the industrial age… not a trivial amount.

But certainly not the <1% CHIP @ 190 claimed. And CO2 does not condense with temperature, remaining at concentration for centuries – making it a driving factor in temperature and corresponding water vapor feedbacks.

Have to disagree, based on the numbers. A doubling of CO2 will raise the global mean temperature by ~1.1 degrees (as everyone, including Spencer and Lindzen, agrees).

The 1/3 rise in CO2 concentrations leads to a temperature rise of ~0.3-0.4°C (weighted toward the initial increase, as per the log relationship). Fast feedbacks from water vapor, plus some slower feedbacks should about double that, with a tripling over time as ice melts and vegetation changes.

And – we’re roughly 0.8°C warmer than we should be according to the natural forcings. That fits the data and the CO2 forcings. CO2 changes aren’t something to ignore.

Worthy effort but you did not address the science, which is that the Lindzen & Choi 2011 value for 2XCO2 is consistent with the temperature record when you also consider the pSCL-temperature correlation. Dana does not address this either.

This correlation is pretty clear – you can see it in any of the long term temperature datasets – but I note that Dana in his article only uses temperature data from 1958. The CET is available from 1659. The most reliable solar cycle length contiguous data is from 1755.

Now if the solar cycle length correlates so highly with temperature exactly why should that be the case? The authors of the paper I linked to say:

there is mounting evidence that a speeding up of the solar cycle appears to be accompanied by an increase in the efficiency of the solar dynamo that ultimately leads to an increase in the temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere.

You know what the GCR hypothesis says – that solar magnetic field strength modulates GCR seeding of clouds. The point being that the pSCL-temperature correlation is fully consistent with that hypothesis (and IPCC-grade high climate sensitivity is not – it does not explain this data at all).

So, explain to me then why I find pSCL correlates to temperature so much that it explains more than half the temperature variance in the last 250 years? And that Prof Rao and Lean et al 1995 say the same thing about the 20th C? (See my post at #122 for the links)

I might add in your question about Prof Rao’s data that he is a cosmic ray scientist as well as ex head of the Indian space program. Where do you think someone like that is going to get cosmic ray data huh? Don’t be an idiot. While I respect Mike Lockwood’s group, and their climate science results, Prof Lockwood’s not in the GCR field to that level yet. And I find it interesting that Prof Lockwood is using GISS’s series, with the exact same Arctic smoothing issues I mentioned, when the correlation between TSI and Arctic surface temperature anomaly is so tight (see Fig 1). Funny that.

(And we’ll get to see if KR bites on the last one and causes me to bring up the same data from ‘consensus’ sources…)

I’m afraid your pSCL link (what does that acronym mean, anyway?) does not work, due to an error in the PDF.

Measured, counted GCR’s still do not correlate with temperatures over the last 40-50 years.

—

cohenite @ 200

Solar influence do have an effect. But over the last 100 years, and especially the last 50, the sun has been getting cooler, not hotter. Stockwell’s hypothesis is ingenious – that doesn’t mean it corresponds to the data – it does not.

We’ve seen 0.8°C warming over natural forcings in the last 150 years, which matches the CO2 increase and a roughly 2°C short term, 3°C long term climate sensitivity/CO2 doubling. That’s the observations, Cohenite.

—

At this point we’re wandering quite, quite far from the topic – and unfortunately my time is finite. Dr. Evan’s “4 points” simply don’t hold up, and are (in my opinion) inaccurate rhetoric intended to score political points. Not science.

There is an objective reality, the real world, and in the real world there should be consistent cause and effect, identifiable reasons for what goes on.

However – cohenite invokes unbalanced insolation (somehow, the Stephan-Bolzmann relationship of temperature to radiation is not in effect as a feedback), Bruce of Newcastle speaks of galactic cosmic rays and magnetism (contrary to measurements), Chip dismisses pretty much all of spectroscopy (!!!), Truthseeker states that no models can be trusted…

The very fact that you cannot agree on a rebuttal to the science should be a sign that your rebuttals are not supported by the evidence.

If there was a solid rebuttal to AGW, there would be some consistency in the objections, based upon evidence. That’s rather notably lacking…

And please, no “temporarily overwhelmed by ‘natural forcings’”, “China burning coal”, “volcanic ash”, “missing heat ‘hiding’ in the ocean depths” or any of the other dozen or so outrageous and utterly debunked pathetic excuses.

CAGW is busted for the simple reason that it is NOT happening according to the real-world observed data. End of story.

A straightforward recurrence matrix representation of the atmosphere/surface/deep
ocean system, models temperature changes by (1) the size of a forcing,
its duration (due to accumulation of heat), and the depth
of forcing in the atmosphere/surface/deep ocean system (due to increasing mixing losses and increasing intrinsic gain with depth).

The mechanism is straightforward:

Over the last century, annual global surface temperature rises or falls 0:0630:028C=W=m2 20 per year when solar irradiance is greater or less than an equilibrium value of 1366W=m2 at top-of atmosphere.

This means global warming can still occur with a declining sun IF that decline has not yet taken the insolation below the average. Stockwell is now defining the consistent lags in the system and cloud effects.

KR’s argument that because sceptics cannot agree on an alternative explanation for warming means none can be true is, I’m afraid, sophistry of a pretty primitive standard and indicates that KR has not taken my advice to not be lazy in his response to Stockwell’s thesis.

KR @ 193, you say,”"…catastrophic global warming…” is a Strawman argument, a logical fallacy, that I only see on ‘skeptic’ blogs”. This comment is disingenuous. Whilst I think most ‘climate’ scientists probably do not adhere to the ‘catastrophic’ doctrine they are remarkably mute when some of them, as well as advocates for carbon pricing, etc do make these claims. It does your purpose no good if you are going to make such misleading statements.

So – you seem to be assuming that CO2 is the only influence on climate (it isn’t, nobody says it is), that there are no variations such as ENSO (there are), and that in something as complex as the Earth climate the response to any change would be monotonic?

All temperature records, including the BEST analysis, show a rising multi-decade temperature trend well above natural forcings, with some variations and noise. Your post is a straw-man fallacy, as nobody insists on a monotonic temperature rise.

And again, “catastrophic” is a ‘skeptic’ point, also a straw-man argument.

I’ll add your “monotonic” strawman to the list along with the ones I mentioned in @202.

…indicates that KR has not taken my advice to not be lazy in his response to Stockwell’s thesis

Actually, I did read Stockwell’s thesis. What he fails to account for is that any fixed offset in TSI, or magnetically throttled GCR’s, etc., would be balanced by a finite change in temperature – increasing radiation to space and cancelling the forcing.

Only a continuing change in forcing (total offset) can account for a continuing change in temperature, and a fixed offset in estimated TSI cannot do that. It’s a silly argument on Stockwell’s part, one I’ve seen discussed before (it was a favorite of Ken Lambert’s on SkS, for example), and as I stated in @202 yet another inconsistent argument against the science.

I did a bit of search, cohenite – on this blog alone you have argued TSI offsets, MEP cancellation, fraud in temperature measurements, water vapor decreasing to offset CO2 rises (Miskolczi, I believe), various arguments against basic spectroscopy (2nd law threads), microstates preventing CO2 thermal emission in contradiction to everything we know, and so on.

Objective reality should point in a single direction – you’ve offered multiple contradictory hypotheses as to why you won’t agree with basic science. And as I said before, that should be a solid clue that your objections are not supported by reality.

Sorry about the link, it comes up OK on my browser. Try scrolling down using the scroll bar RHS (I’m using IE8 and it is doing something odd with PDF’s, they are blank until you scroll, then they are there). Or do a ‘save target as’. The citation is C.J. Butler & D.J. Johnston, Journal of Atmospheric and Terrestrial Physics, Vol. 58, No. 15, pp. 1657-1672, 1996.

“pSCL” is short for previous solar cycle length. In other words you graph the annual temperature averaged over the solar cycle against the length in years of the last solar cycle just completed and you get a significant correlation. R^2 is 0.38 for HadCRUT v3 and 0.34 for CET since 1857 even without correcting for CO2 or other forcings. (The CET R^2 drops before 1857 because of the big volcanic eruptions in the early part of 19th C.)

“Measured, counted GCR’s still do not correlate with temperatures over the last 40-50 years.”

So? My question was “explain to me then why I find pSCL correlates to temperature so much that it explains more than half the temperature variance in the last 250 years? And that Prof Rao and Lean et al 1995 say the same thing about the 20th C?”

I hypothesise that GCR’s are the mechanism, but the data you cite may suggest otherwise. A reasonable point. It doesn’t change the finding that solar effects cause more than half the temperature variance (and I might add that my own model fits the last 50-60 years better than the early part of the dataset when there were more volcanic forcings).

“If there was a solid rebuttal to AGW, there would be some consistency in the objections, based upon evidence.”

Who is rebutting AGW? I don’t say that GCR’s explain all variance in the last 50 years, I say that pSCL + ocean cycles + 2XCO2=0.7 C does. A 2XCO2 of 0.7 C is AGW.

Just in case it wasn’t clear in my first post about Andorra – I was actually advocating their model, because last time I lookd the emplyment rate was officially at Zero Percent and they have one of the highest life expectancies in the world. I think Bulldust thought I was slamming them. Au contraire mon frer

Interesting, but I see some issues here. They are relying upon just two site for temperatures, primarily Armagh. That is the extreme opposite of a global temperature record.

…there is mounting evidence that a speeding up of the solar cycle appears to be accompanied by an increase in the efficiency of the solar dynamo that ultimately leads to an increase in the temperature of the Earth’s lower atmosphere.

But this depends upon cosmic ray changes (again, going in the wrong direction in the last 50 years) or UV influences on the upper atmosphere (no evidence whatsoever). They admit that TSI changes won’t account for the current temperatures.

In order for this to be true, (a) basic spectroscopy, CO2 levels, and satellite measurements of outgoing energy would have to be wrong, removing the AGW effects, and (b) unsupported, unproven hypotheses about UV influence would have to have a dominant effect.

Occam’s razor does not support this.

Who is rebutting AGW? I don’t say that GCR’s explain all variance in the last 50 years, I say that pSCL + ocean cycles + 2XCO2=0.7 C does. A 2XCO2 of 0.7 C is AGW.

We haven’t had a 2xCO2, but the CO2 changes we have seen since the industrial revolution should show ~0.3 C from CO2 with some water vapor feedback. Again, those numbers match up, and your hypothesis would have to prove that false while proving the solar cycle influence true – two overturnings of current understanding. You might be right, but you’re going to need a lot of evidence… which I’m not seeing.

KR; you are still wrong about Stockwell and seem to be saying what Beenstock said about CO2 based on differencing between forcing from TSI and CO2 in their affect on temperature; on the other hand you appear to be confirming Stockwell by saying “Only a continuing change in forcing (total offset) can account for a continuing change in temperature”; that is what TSI above the average is. As for offsets against above average TSI:

“a finite change in temperature – increasing radiation to space”

that is as good a rebuttal of AGW as I’ve read and pretty much sums up Lindzen and Choi.

In a scientific context the magnitude of AGW can be discussed logically and given a magnitude as done @ 158 and later at 210. It is so small that it effectively does not exist.

Unfortunately for all discussion on AGW in public media there is a problem that as soon as you admit that anthropogenic CO2 has an effect the warmers close the discussion and repeat “you admit that there is man made Global Warming via CO2.

KR; David Stockwell has asked me to post this in reply to your point @208:

The notion that a continuing change in forcing is required for a continuing change in temperature is not supported by the data or the basic physical models. Even Jim Hansen and the climate models show that a step change in forcing from CO2 results in increasing temperature for hundreds to thousands of years before the forcing and temperature finally equilibrate. Why shouldn’t the long time scale for such equilibria apply even more so to a step increase in solar insolation above the solar constant?

The methods of analysis used to relate temperature directly to forcing using short time-scales and moving averages such found in Lockwood are wrong, and when appropriate autoregessive models are used, diagnose these very long time scales, and point to very high solar sensitivity.
The fact that the temperature is more highly correlated with with the integral of forcing anomaly, than with the anomaly itself, over all time scales, is a pretty robust indication that its the accumulated anomaly that counts, for whatever reason.

This is a very self-consistent picture, except that it does not explain the lack of response to CO2, but recents results showing strong negative feedback from clouds may go a long way to explain this.

Out of curiosity, has Stockwell submitted his paper(s) anywhere? The only references I can find for his work are on the (not reviewed) vixra.org and rxiv.org, cited only by Stockwell himself.

I realize lots of folks subscribe to conspiracy theories regarding peer review, but personally I take blog postings and private publishing a lot less seriously than something that holds up to scrutiny by folks in the field.

Stockwell’s theories indicate an offset for the last 50 years, corresponding to the post 1970 warming, according to the links you have shown – no such offset exists in the data. A fixed offset such as he describes would show an exponentially declining temperature rise as the imbalance was addressed by rising temperatures – and no such trend can be extracted, even with apparent less warming over the last ~5 years, with any statistical significance from the data.

The version you have looked at is for public comment; a shorter version is at a Journal. You say:

Stockwell’s theories indicate an offset for the last 50 years, corresponding to the post 1970 warming, according to the links you have shown – no such offset exists in the data. A fixed offset such as he describes would show an exponentially declining temperature rise as the imbalance was addressed by rising temperatures – and no such trend can be extracted, even with apparent less warming over the last ~5 years, with any statistical significance from the data.

Sorry to go back a few posts but I’ve now looked more closely at Lockwood & Frolich 2007.

I find it interesting that their conclusions are not supported by their own data! Some points:

1. The “GCR’s” quoted in section 2 and Fig 1 are neutron counts. Which are not and cannot be modulated by the solar magnetic field to any meaningful extent, since neutrons are not charged particles.

2. The inverse correlation between Be^10 and temperature is much stronger in Fig 4, almost perfect in fact, until they paste the grey line of neutron count derived so-called Be^10 on the end of the dataset. If you don’t believe me here is a direct quote:

in addition, a composite of cosmic ray observations (by Forbush, Neher and the Climax neutron monitor) have been scaled by regression to the [10Be] data (Rouillard & Lockwood in press) and are shown by the grey line.

Astounding!

3. Prof Lockwood acknowledges the historic correlations with L, but ignores that it is previous L not current L. Indeed if you graph current SCL to solar cycle av temperature the R^2 is nearly zero.

4. He continues to use GISS temperature series in Fig 4 while ignoring the fact that GISS data has divergedfrom the rest of the datasets in the last couple decades for the reasons I mentioned and due to some rather odd adjustments. Why has he not used HadCRUT or UAH/RSS?

I find his complete discounting of the Be^10 values in his conclusion very odd when the whole GCR theory is about magnetic field modulation – neutrons are not protons!

Don’t be silly. There is abundant literature for the pSCL-temperature link – see Lockwood 2007 that you linked! I specifically quoted that one because Armagh is roughly similar to the CET triangle in latitude and climate. My model of the CET uses the Butler & Johnston regression slope for that reason. That is as near to apples to apples you can get while having an independent dataset.

We haven’t had a 2xCO2, but the CO2 changes we have seen since the industrial revolution should show ~0.3 C from CO2

I agree (for 2XCO2 of 0.6 C specifically it calculates to 0.291 C plus few more decimal places to be pedantic). Remember you have also a cyclical ocean component which has wavelength 64 odd years and amplitude 0.27 C trough to peak. So the 0.82 C rise in the 20th C comprises about 0.25 C oceans + 0.35 C solar direct+indirect + 0.22 C for CO2, just as you’d expect from the satellite measured values of 2XCO2. The IPCC models ignore the first two components. Likewise any analysis which starts from the satellite era, around 1978, also is starting from the bottom of the ocean cycle, with 2005 the top of the cycle – so out of a 30 year anomaly of +0.6 nearly half is cyclic.

My sincere apologies – I had started to reply, had to leave the computer for a while, and lost the text before I sent it. Unfortunately, I had (mistakenly) mentally marked it off as done.

Nobody I know of is arguing that we’ll hit organic toxicity with CO2. In terms of climate effects, the 350ppm proposed limit is long gone, we’re at 394 now and rising.

I would hope that we might be able to limit the upper excursion of CO2 to 450 ppm mid-century, and reduce it from there to 350 or below. While that would (based on paleoclimate estimates) still lead to a 5-6 meter sea level rise, it might take centuries, and we could adapt at a reasonable pace. In the meantime, though, I expect changes such as droughts, floods, increased food costs overall, and the ongoing northward movement of the new-equatorial tropical rainbelt (Sci. Am.) which will likely make my coffee much more expensive (grrrr).

They mention muons + neutrons, muons being charged. I’ve only scanned the paper just now but here’s what Sloan & Wolfendale say in their conclusion:

it is shown that the magnitude of the effect implies that a large fraction of the low cloud cover is formed by ionization. However, no evidence could be found of changes in the cloud cover from known changes in the cosmic ray ionization rate.

The first part refers to the GCR-cloud pan-solar cycle correlation (if you read the whole paragraph – note they’re unsure the correlation is real, but that’s what data said). Pretty strong statement in favour of the Svensmark hypothesis: “large fraction”. The second part is related to Forbush events. However we have just had a new paper out by Dragic et al who show that you can see the GCR-temperature link clearly so long as you filter the smaller events out. Here’s the paper.

Actually, I have never seen any solid evidence for such a cycle. At all.

The analysis I linked to is of HadCRUT, which is the only global dataset that goes back long enough, even then it is only a bit over two full wavelengths.

But if you look at the ~64 year ocean cycles you can see it strongly in AMO, PDO and ENSO, although the latter one is only a single wavelength. Put that through Fourier and you won’t get anything. The trouble with such long cycles is we just don’t have enough data. But that does not say its not there. What I can’t say is how coupled the PDO and AMO are – they are roughly in synch the last hundred or so years though.

I can’t magic enough data out of the historical record, but it seems to work well enough for Joe D’Aleo and Joe Bastardi to start their own forecasting business.

The “Cumulative solar irradiance” in his paper is based on an offset that is rather arbitrary, considering the variety of other forcings (albedo, GHG’s, etc.).

Give me a break! Arbitary? It works; you’re other forcings don’t unless they are contorted along with the data as I note @ 186 in the context of the RC post which matty linked to; this word “offset” is inappropriate for what David Stockwell is proposing; it is not an offset but a genuine, measureable forcing based on observations unlike the modelled, theoretical and proven wrong forcings [ie aerosols, clouds, deep ocean] of AGW.

Your fantasy:
“”I would hope that we might be able to limit the upper excursion of CO2 to 450 ppm mid-century, and reduce it from there to 350 or below. While that would (based on paleoclimate estimates) still lead to a 5-6 meter sea level rise,”"

An alternative :
And on the fifth day God ………created a 5-6 meter sea level rise.

I think one is just as likely as the other.

Anyone who continues to have a conversation with KR after that is not thinking clearly; he is a dyed in the wool warmer.

The last time the oceans rose that much was between 10,000 and 7,000 years ago. There will not be a repeat because there is almost, but not quite, NO ICE LEFT TO MELT.

It’s all melted.

CO2 toxicity. US subs can run on 8,000 ppm CO2 for weeks at a time. That is the people in them.

“So – you seem to be assuming that CO2 is the only influence on climate . . .”

It’s such a pity they don’t teach reading comprehension any more.
Actually, what I implied, and pretty bluntly at that, was CO2 has SFA influence on climate.
But you just go on building your strawman, given the world is apparently running out of snow.

“. . . that there are no variations such as ENSO . . . “

Again noooo – I think a reader of reasonably average intelligent and with a modicum of comprehension skills, would understand I believe the NATURAL cyclical fluctuations in climate are due entirely to NATURAL variations such as ENSO, PDO AMO etc, and we have no need whatsoever for trace amounts of plant food to explain anything.

Here is the bottom line KR.

It gets warmer for about 20 to 30 years, and then cooler for 20 to 30 years. These cycles fit into larger cycles of fairly regular warming and cooling as evidenced by the MWP and LIA.

Your entire “end of the world” global warming scam was based entirely on the totally natural warming between the mid 70′s and the turn of the century. It’s finished, and now it’s getting cooler.

KR; The offset is arbitrary (I would call it a free parameter) but is very well estimated by the mean value, resulting in good correlation with accumulated TSI (surrogate) anomaly over 100, 1000, and 1000000 year time scales. This makes sense as the system is largely moving around an equilibrium that has been established over long time periods.

The result, as I would put it, is that a model based on the integration of this TSI anomaly (using Lean or Sunspots) explains most of the post-1950 increase AND the post-1998 hiatus in warming, with an estimated detection of contribution from an additional trend (like CO2) of less than 20%.

It also predicts something that has never been predicted, the phase shift between TSI and global temperature is EXACTLY 2.75 years, or 2*pi/4 which results from basic integration calculus.

Totally agree – LOOK OUT – the earth is about to be hit by this huge friggin’ meteorite that we haven’t noticed yet (Teh heh)
I also love the way he links to Sci American – the article is so full of BS my sides almost split.

KR obviously didn’t read any of the comments of the article he links to.

Now explain why after about 30 posts on detailed science of climate sensitivity just why measuring it by means of a NASA satellite gets 0.6-0.7 C/doubling, but by computer models “most estimates put it around 3C”.

I do like it that computer models have now found that hot water sinks. Professional climate modellers have a real problem with minus signs in their equations I think.

I’m afraid there are some areas where I will provide little in the way of meaningful debate. When I say ‘most estimates’ I mean ‘most estimates from the climate science field’. If you disagree with those estimates, you can argue them over at SkS if there aren’t any fish to fry here. You’re polite enough and interested enough in reading that you’d probably avoid moderation.

Whatever it takes! The crap science is just made up to push their agenda along.

“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
- Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
- Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research

“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
- Al Gore,
Climate Change activist

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“It doesn’t matter what is true,
it only matters what people believe is true.”
- Paul Watson,
co-founder of Greenpeace

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The only way to get our society to truly change is to
frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
- emeritus professor Daniel Botkin

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The climate crisis is not a political issue, it is a moral and
spiritual challenge to all of humanity. It is also our greatest
opportunity to lift Global Consciousness to a higher level.”
- Al Gore,
Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis…”
- David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Humanity is sitting on a time bomb. If the vast majority of the
world’s scientists are right, we have just ten years to avert a
major catastrophe that could send our entire planet’s climate system
into a tail-spin of epic destruction involving extreme weather, floods,
droughts, epidemics and killer heat waves beyond anything we have
ever experienced – a catastrophe of our own making.”
- Al Gore,
An Inconvenient Truth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We are getting close to catastrophic tipping points,
despite the fact that most people barely notice the warming yet.”
- Dr James Hansen,
NASA researcher

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“By the end of this century climate change will reduce the human
population to a few breeding pairs surviving near the Arctic.”
- Sir James Lovelock,
Revenge of Gaia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate Change will result in a catastrophic global sea level
rise of seven meters. That’s bye-bye most of Bangladesh,
Netherlands, Florida and would make London the new Atlantis.”
- Greenpeace International

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“This planet is on course for a catastrophe.
The existence of Life itself is at stake.”
- Dr Tim Flannery,
Principal Research Scientist

“Climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here,
and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new
global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.”
- Barack Obama,
US President

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We simply must do everything we can in our power to
slow down global warming before it is too late.”
- Arnold Schwarzenegger,
Governor of California

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate change should be seen as the
greatest challenge to ever face mankind.”
- Prince Charles

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Climate change makes us all global citizens,
we are truly all in this together.”
- Gordon Brown,
British Prime Minister

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We have reached the critical moment of decision on climate change.
Failure to act to now would be deeply and unforgivably irresponsible.
We urgently require a global environmental revolution.”
- Tony Blair,
former British PM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We are close to a time when all of humankind
will envision a global agenda that encompasses
a kind of Global Marshall Plan to address the
causes of poverty and suffering and
environmental destruction all over the earth.”
- Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“In Nature organic growth proceeds according
to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a ‘master plan’ is
missing from the process of growth and development of
the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for
sustainable growth and world development based on global
allocation of all resources and a new global economic system.
Ten or twenty years form today it will probably be too late.”
- Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We need a new paradigm of development in
which the environment will be a priority.
World civilization as we know it will soon end.
We have very little time and we must act.
If we can address the environmental problem,
it will have to be done within a new system, a
new paradigm. We have to change our mindset,
the way humankind views the world.”
- Mikhail Gorbachev,
founder of Green Cross International

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The concept of national sovereignty has been immutable,
indeed a sacred principle of international relations.
It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to
the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation.”
- UN Commission on Global Governance report

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Democracy is not a panacea. It cannot organize everything and
it is unaware of its own limits. These facts must be faced squarely.
Sacrilegious though this may sound, democracy is no longer well
suited for the tasks ahead. The complexity and the technical nature
of many of today’s problems do not always allow elected
representatives to make competent decisions at the right time.”
- Club of Rome,
The First Global Revolution

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization
and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global
community will inevitably have multiple political consequences.
Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change
in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must
assume some aspects of a world government.”
- Mikhail Gorbachev,
State of the World Forum

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I envisage the prinicles of the Earth Charter to
be a new form of the ten commandments.
They lay the foundation for a sustainable
global earth community.”
- Mikhail Gorbachev,
co-author of The Earth Charter

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“In my view, after fifty years of service in the United Nations system,
I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper
Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present
political and economic systems are no longer appropriate
and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet.
We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways.”
- Dr Robert Muller,
UN Assistant Secretary General,

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty
to the international community and beginning to create a
new system of international environmental governance
as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises.”
- Lester Brown,
WorldWatch Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Regionalism must precede globalism.
We foresee a seamless system of governance from
local communities, individual states, regional unions
and up through to the United Nations itself.”
- UN Commission on Global Governance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that
fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order
and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income.
Perhaps only a new and enlightened humanism
can permit mankind to negotiate this transition.”
- Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The alternative to the existing world order can only
emerge as a result of a new human dimension of progress.
We envision a revolution of the mind, a new way of thinking.”
- Mikhail Gorbachev,
State of the World Forum

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“We require a central organizing principle – one agreed to voluntarily.
Minor shifts in policy, moderate improvement in laws and regulations,
rhetoric offered in lieu of genuine change – these are all forms of
appeasement, designed to satisfy the public’s desire to believe that
sacrifice, struggle and a wrenching transformation
of society will not be necessary.”
- Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Adopting a central organizing principle…
means embarking on an all-out effort to use every
policy and program, every law and institution…
to halt the destruction of the environment.”
- Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound
reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world
has ever experienced a major shift in the priorities of both
governments and individuals and an unprecedented
redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift
will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences
of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level.”
- UN Agenda 21

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The current course of development is thus clearly unsustainable.
Current problems cannot be solved by piecemeal measures.
More of the same is not enough. Radical change from the
current trajectory is not an option, but an absolute necessity.
Fundamental economic, social and cultural changes that
address the root causes of poverty and environmental
degradation are required and they are required now.”
– from the Earth Charter website

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The goal now is a socialist, redistributionist society,
which is nature’s proper steward and society’s only hope.”
- David Brower,
founder of Friends of the Earth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“If we don’t overthrow capitalism, we don’t have a chance of
saving the world ecologically. I think it is possible to have
an ecologically sound society under socialism.
I don’t think it is possible under capitalism”
- Judi Bari,
principal organiser of Earth First!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsiblity to bring that about?”
- Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of
ecology and the world resource situation.”
- Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another
United States. We can’t let other countries have the same
number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US.
We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.”
- Michael Oppenheimer,
Environmental Defense Fund

“We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place
for capitalists and their projects. We must reclaim the roads and
plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams,
free shackled rivers and return to wilderness
millions of acres of presently settled land.”
- David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Complex technology of any sort is an assault on
human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to
discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy,
because of what we might do with it.”
- Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the
worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
- Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the
equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
- Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Our insatiable drive to rummage deep beneath
the surface of the earth is a willful expansion
of our dysfunctional civilization into Nature.”
- Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many,
doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to
about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure
and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species,
returning throughout the world.”
-Dave Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!

“Mankind is the most dangerous, destructive,
selfish and unethical animal on the earth.”
- Michael Fox,
vice-president of The Humane Society

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Human beings, as a species,
have no more value than slugs.”
- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a
pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.”
- Sir James Lovelock,
Healing Gaia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The Earth has cancer
and the cancer is Man.”
- Club of Rome,
Mankind at the Turning Point

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells;
the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people.
We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to
the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many
apparently brutal and heartless decisions.”
- Prof Paul Ehrlich,
The Population Bomb

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I don’t claim to have any special interest in natural history,
but as a boy I was made aware of the annual fluctuations in
the number of game animals and the need to adjust
the cull to the size of the surplus population.”
- Prince Philip,
preface of Down to Earth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society
at the present North American material standard of living
would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard
of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible.”
- United Nations,
Global Biodiversity Assessment

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“A total population of 250-300 million people,
a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
- Ted Turner,
founder of CNN and major UN donor

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“… the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence
more than 500 million but less than one billion.”
- Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“One America burdens the earth much more than
twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
In order to stabilize world population,we must eliminate
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
- Jacques Cousteau,
UNESCO Courier

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth
as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
- Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh,
patron of the World Wildlife Fund

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong.
It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The extinction of the human species may not
only be inevitable but a good thing.”
- Christopher Manes, Earth First!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival
for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species.
Phasing out the human race will solve every
problem on Earth – social and environmental.”
- Ingrid Newkirk,
former President of PETA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against
society, unless the parents hold a government license.
All potential parents should be required to use
contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing
antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
- David Brower,
first Executive Director of the Sierra Club

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The fate of mankind, as well as of religion, depends upon
the emergence of a new faith in the future.
Armed with such a faith, we might find
it possible to resanctify the earth.”
- Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The greatest hope for the Earth lies in religionists and
scientists uniting to awaken the world to its near fatal predicament
and then leading mankind out of the bewildering maze of
international crises into the future Utopia of humanist hope.”
- Club of Rome,
Goals for Mankind

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“What an incredible planet in the universe this will be
when we will be one human family living in justice,
peace, love and harmony with our divine Earth,
with each other and with the heavens.”
- Robert Muller,
UN Assistant Secretary General

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The earth is literally our mother, not only because we depend on
her for nurture and shelter but even more because the human
species has been shaped by her in the womb of evolution….
Our salvation depends upon our ability
to create a religion of nature.”
- Rene Dubos,
board member, Planetary Citizens

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Each element, plant, insect, fish and animal
represents a certain aspect of Gaia’s – and our – being.
In a way, we are Gaia’s intelligence and awareness
- currently lost in self-destructive madness.
We must acknowledge, respect and love her for being
the Mother she is to us or we deny our very selves.
Nurture the Mother as she nurtures us.”
- Prof. Michael J. Cohen,
Ecopsychologist

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“It is the responsibility of each human being today to
choose between the force of darkness and the force of light.
We must therefore transform our attitudes, and adopt a renewed
respect for the superior laws of Divine Nature.”
- Maurice Strong,
first Secretary General of UNEP

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The spirit of our planet is stirring!
The Consciousness of Goddess Earth
is now rising against all odds,
in spite of millennia of suppression,
repression and oppression inflicted on Her
by a hubristic and misguided humanity.

The Earth is a living entity, a biological organism
with psychic and spiritual dimensions.
With the expansion of the patriarchal religions
that focused on a male God majestically
stationed in Heaven ruling over the Earth and the
Universe, the memory of our planet’s innate Divinity
was repressed and banished into the
collective unconscious of humanity.”
- Envision Earth

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Still more important is the implication that the evolution of
homo sapiens, with his technological inventiveness and his
increasingly subtle communications network, has vastly increased
Gaia’s range of perception. She is now through us awake and aware
of herself. She has seen the reflection of her fair face through the
eyes of astronauts and the television cameras of orbiting spacecraft.

Our sensations of wonder and pleasure, our capacity
for conscious thought and speculation, our restless curiosity and
drive are hers to share. This new interrelationship of Gaia with man
is by no means fully established; we are not yet a truly collective
species, corralled and tamed as an integral part of the biosphere,
as we are as individual creatures. It may be that the destiny of
mankind is to become tamed, so that the fierce, destructive, and
greedy forces of tribalism and nationalism are fused into a
compulsive urge to belong to the commonwealth of all
creatures which constitutes Gaia.”
– Sir James Lovelock,
Gaia: A New Look At Life

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Little by little a planetary prayer book is
thus being composed by an increasingly united
humanity seeking its oneness. Once again,
but this time on a universal scale, humankind is
seeking no less than its reunion with ‘divine,’
its transcendence into higher forms of life. Hindus
call our earth Brahma, or God, for they rightly
see no difference between our earth and the divine.
This ancient simple truth is slowly dawning again upon
humanity, as we are about to enter our cosmic age
and become what we were always meant to be:
the planet of god.”
- Robert Muller,
UN Assistant Secretary General

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“What if Mary is another name for Gaia? Then her capacity for
virgin birth is no miracle . . . it is a role of Gaia since life began . . .
She is of this Universe and, conceivably, a part of God. On Earth,
she is the source of life everlasting and is alive now;
she gave birth to humankind and we are part of her.”
- Sir James Lovelock,
Ages of Gaia

“The spiritual sense of our place in nature…
can be traced to the origins of human civilization….
The last vestige of organized goddess worship
was eliminated by Christianity.”
- Al Gore,
Earth in the Balance

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed,
we must destroy the Judeo-Christian Religious tradition.”
- Peter Singer, founder of Animal Rights

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“I pledge allegiance to the Earth and all its sacred parts.
Its water, land and living things and all its human hearts.”
- Global Education Associates,
The Earth Pledge

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“By fostering a deep sense of connection to others and to the earth
in all its dimensions, holistic education encourages a sense of
responsibility to self to others and to the planet.”
- Global Alliance for Transforming Education

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

“The earth is not dead matter. She is alive.
Now begin to speak to the earth as you walk.
You can speak out loud, or just talk to her in your mind.
Send your love into her with your exhalation. Feel your
heart touching upon the heart of the planet. Say to her
whatever words come to you: Mother Earth, I love you.
Mother Earth, I bless you. May you be healed. May all
your creatures be happy. Peace to you, Mother Earth.
On behalf of the human race, I ask forgiveness
for having injured you. Forgive us, Mother Earth”
- US Student Textbook,
“Prayer to the Earth”

Over at Septic Science you only get “moderated” (snipped) if you make crass or abusive remarks. The fact that you made a post still remains “on the record”. Much like it works here and at WUWT.

If you present a well-supported argument, however, you are “disappeared”, put on a black-list, and banned from posting at all. That way nobody ever knows about your post, let alone your argument, and there is no way to object.

Hardly a glowing example of where anybody should go to “debate climate science”.

Okay, admittedly, it was a gross approximation on my part but I don’t see how CO2 can make up 9-18% of the entire planetary greenhouse when water vapour makes up 96% of the atmospheric greenhouse by volume, when its absorptivity/emissivity is far greater than CO2′s and when it absorbs energy over a far wider energy-wave spectrum, from infrared to visible light. See here: http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/graphs/CO2_infrared_sorption_Tom.jpg As far as I can see, the effect of CO2 appears to be completely overwhelmed by that of water vapour and thus the threat of anthropogenic CO2 appears totally insignificant to me. The weak heat-trapping effectiveness of CO2 is perhaps most graphically demonstrated by the fact that at night the Sahara Desert (which is virtually free of water vapour and clouds whereas CO2 is apparently more or less homogeneously spread throughout the atmosphere) temperatures can show a daily range of more than 50ºC reaching that temperature during the day then plunging below freezing at night. If CO2 is such a strong driver of temperature as the IPCC claim, then how does the temperature drop this dramatically in just hours? It can’t, can it? Luckily, we have lots of water vapour and clouds where we live. If we had only CO2, the temperature would probably drop significantly every night as it does in the Sahara Desert.

We can demonstrate CO2′s ineffectualness another way based entirely on the figures and formula from the IPCC. According to the IPCC’s logarithmic equation for converting CO2 increments into radiative forcing (RF) increments the total radiative forcing to date amounts to about 1.772W/sq.m (i.e. Ln(280/390)*5.35). According to Trenberth the entire planetary greenhouse back-radiation from all sources amounts to 324W/sq.m. Therefore the anthropogenic CO2 component only contributes 0.5% to the entire planetary greenhouse (i.e. 1.772/324). The IPCC say that the atmospheric greenhouse from all sources increases the surface temperature by 33C. Therefore the total temperature increase from anthropogenic CO2 amounts to about 0.165C (i.e. 0.5% of 33C). However, because CO2 is subject to diminishing returns according to the Lambert-Beer law and because regular increments of RF produce diminishing increments of temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the resultant temperature increase is likely to be in fact much smaller than 0.165C. Remember, this calculation is based entirely on the IPCC’s and Trenberth’s own figures. It appears to me that their own ‘science’ refutes their own claims.

MaryF, my point about the absence of direct evidence is, perhaps, a little on the side of hair-splitting (I do appreciate you weren’t saying that about me) yet I feel it’s better to refine arguments so they are as good as they can be.

I agree the human contribution to climate change can be determined, at least roughly and indirectly, and that it’s not inconsiderable but, also, that the carbon dioxide element of this is tiny and, in the case of Australia’s contribution, utterly trivial.

Some of my family live in Australia and it worries me what’s happening out there.

“”my point about the absence of direct evidence is, perhaps, a little on the side of hair-splitting”"

No it is very useful to clearly outline concepts and I had not really given any thought to the fact that there was no “direct evidence”.

All we can do with effects of CO2 from Nature versus Human origin is to estimate relative quantities.

Getting absolute values is near impossible because of the other likely variables like albedo, organic heat from bacteria in soil, ocean heat sinks and sources and the many time delays associated with all variables. It is a nightmare to model .

I have been “disappeared” at Septic Science. The thread was on Trenberth’s “missing heat”; specifically the “Thermal Inertia of the Oceans”.

Since I was “disappeared” what more information or evidence could I possibly give you?

I had made about a dozen posts and I was winning a sizable portion of the readership (judged by the other comments), when I was “disappeared” (all my comments were simply erased), and I was banned from further comment.

Back then I was naive enough to think I didn’t have to take screen-dumps of everything I posted. Today I know better.

The publication ‘Tomorrow’s Weather’(Alex S Gaddes 1990.) completely debunks the forty year Climate Science Fantasy of El Nino and provides an exact predictor mechanism of ‘Dry Cycles’ based on Solar/Astronomical/Gravitational/Rotational factors and named as the ‘Ratio Principle’. An updated version of this work (with forecasts to 2055,) is available as a free pdf from dongaddes93@gmail.com

Sorry mate I was actually giving you a hard time. The article by Dr Evans (up at the top) has the comparison of the satellite data vs 11 model results. You can see with your own eyes the models don’t correctly model reality. Spencer & Braswell 2010 goes one more step showing EIGHTEEN models favoured by the IPCC do not match the real behaviour of the Earth’s climate. And just yesterday he put up this post to gently explain to critics that he wasn’t cherry picking…the real satellite measured data is not modelled correctly by ANY of 140 model decadal datasets. I didn’t think you could get 140 lines on one graph and have it be remotely legible.

As I said, I’ve been a modeller for a while (lets see, yes started in 1988) and I would be embarassed by the performance I’ve seen. Models have to model reality not wishful thinking.

As I also said, if the IPCC modellers do actually factor in solar magnetism and ocean cycles they will find derived climate sensitivity dropping back to the measured values around about 0.7 C/doubling. Which are also “from the climate science field” even if you don’t like this.

This has always been the way in science. In my field of chemistry there were zillions of hypotheses in the 17th and 18th centuries that we would laugh at now. But alchemists became chemists by adjusting their hypotheses as new data came to light. We are seeing the same in climate science – and as with the alchemists there are a lot of people who don’t like established business models being overturned. Money is the great corrupter then and now.

KR @ 202 – misquoting someone is a sure sign that you have no valid counter argument. The comment I pointed you to is from someone who uses computer models extensively in their work and he is saying that climate models cannot be trusted and explains why. There are a number of highly qualified scientists with peer reviewed papers showing that the climate computer models are at odds with the actual data that they are trying to predict. You and I both know that computer modelling is used extensively in many technical fields where the underlying relationships and important variables are well known. Climate models are useless precisely because the underlying relationships are not well known and they do not cater for a fraction of the variables that are influencing the outcomes. I have many rebuttals that use the science, but I was making a specific point that shows that the whole CAGW edifice is built on the quicksand of climate computer models, a point that you have failed to address because you cannot address it.

Perhaps this discussions is off topic, but I was also “disappeared” from Skeptical Science. The moderators over there so tightly control the “debate”, true opposition to the doctrine of AGW are not tolerated. If you do not fall in line, your posting privileges are revoked and your points of contention removed.

That’s right Tristan 248,249, team Skeptical Science removes poignant, antithetic to AGW posts. You’ll notice post 1073 refers to my post 1073. This is not a typo, the moderator did not like the convincing tenor of my comment so SkS simply removed it. Unfortunately for the moderator, an AGW proponent responded quickly, resulting in duplication of comment numbers. Compare my screen-dump to the fixed thread…see if you can spot the difference…the whole incriminating exchange has been removed. As memoryvault said, SkS “disappears” dissent.

I think this whole thing is overhyped. Skeptics will not need to worry because it is the climate that is deciding. There is no warming, glaciers aint melting and nothing is changing dramatically anyway. Over time as is in fact occurring, most people now are noticing that there is no AGW and slowly but surely the issue will die away, the funding is already stopping and the departments etc will slowly close down or change names it will probably be all over in 5 years. All polls everywhere are showing a steady decline in AGW interest its becoming a non-issue.

I think you are correct on all counts. The problem is the damage that will be done as the collectivists perform a “scorched earth” policy on a free-market economy.

If that is the case, why is it that the Government, Greens and independents that believe have proposed a market solution, whereas the Coalition’s ‘Direct Action’ approach to the problem (which aims to reduce emissions by the same amount by 2020) involves taxing and spending (AKA socialism)?

memoryvault and L.J .Ryan – While your comments have been removed from Septical Science, I think it unlikely that all the replies to your comments were also removed. Proof of your comments may be in the replies that are still there. This should be easy enough to verify one way or another, if you can remember the threads that you were posting on.

The alternative is government mandates. The Government just forcing businesses to adopt particular processes which would be funded by tax payers.

So those are the two options on the table. The option to let businesses figure out what to do, or the alternate system of the Government forcing certain remedies on businesses.

Black and white. Notice only two options exist to Adam Smith. Gone is the scientific approach, out the window are any sensible thinkers. Just politicians are left and they give you only two options to chose from. Neither solve a problem, both are expensive, expansive government intrusion and overreach. Adam Smith is convinced of the merit of reducing a miniscule output of Co2 by an even more miniscule amount, affecting a global output of Co2 by an amount so small as to be trivial. All this at a cost, arguably a GREAT cost to the people of Australia.

…The last cooling cycle – 1960 to 1975 (or thereabouts) was a particularly mild one (increased solar activity and a positive PDO), and the population was around 4.5 billion. The western world was in a period of expansion – there were surplus food crops, energy production was increasing, and countries were financially healthy.

And still we had mass famines, poverty, starvation and death. Millions died.

This developing cooling cycle promises to be much harsher (reduced solar activity and a negative PDO), the western world is in a financial mess, ALL western countries teeter on energy poverty, around half of the world’s surplus food supply is now converted into biofuel, and we have an extra two and half billion mouths to feed…

The World Trade Organization (WTO) controlled by the ten international Ag Corporations are making a grab for control of the world food supply. The US “Food Safety” Modernization Act of 2010 literally hands control of US Ag over to the WTO. This means their regulatory weapon arsenal against the worlds independent farmers is now complete and independent farming will become a thing of the past.

If you do a little research you find Dan Amstutz wrote the WTO Agreement on Ag. He was VP of Cargill, the grain traders, worked at the USDA and wrote the US Farm bill dubbed “Freedom to Fail.” This law wiped out many US farmers and produced the ultra cheep grain used to wipe out third world farmers after WTO made protective tariffs “illegal” That law also wiped out the US strategic grain reserve.

The key part is that good old Dan also worked for Goldman Sachs before working for the USDA!

Henry Kissinger gave us the formula in 1970 a couple of years before Maurice Strong started pedaling CAGW at the First Earth Summit in 1972. (The world was still in the cooling cycle giving the Globalists 30 years of guaranteed warming to pedal their scam.)

Control Energy = Global Warming Scam/Green Energy

Control Food = World Trade Organization Agreement on Ag.

Control Money = The Fractional Reserve Banking SCAM/ Central Banks and the orchestrated World Economic Collapse designed to shift more power and control to the international Banking Cartel.

It is all about power, money and politics not science. It helps to look at the whole picture not just the small pieces such as CAGW or the 2008 food crisis. Once you do you see the true agenda.

REPLY: Can we pull back a little on the certainty? By all means point out the profit making potential, and curious suspicious associations. But profit-taking is not in itself, evidence of collusion. Big claims need big evidence.–JN.

It is a market solution because the right to pollute becomes a tradeable commodity.

The permits can be bought and sold which lets businesses evaluate whether they should simply buy permits or if is better for them to reduce their emissions so they don’t need to buy as many permits.

Or companies reduce production due risk/reward ratio. Or they may choose to relocated to friendlier shores or increase price. All distort the current market all of which will lead to an increase in COL.

You see Adam Smith, markets follow a simple supply and demand function. Compulsory demand is not demand it’s government imposed burden,i.e. cost. Supply is determined by production and demand. Pollution permits have zero production cost and have no demand, yet they can be both scarce or ubiquitous at the discretion of the manufacture (government).

If this scheme is a market,then so is protection racket. You better pay me so nothing happens to your business…got it! You better buy these permits so nothing happens to your business…got it!

I did miss the bit about the whole conversation being removed. My bad. I absolutely believe (a Google search will show many anecdotal examples of this) that both Septical Science and UnRealClimate sensor their comments so as not to allow actual scientific debate to infect their dogmatic paradise.

I take heart that the traffic of WUWT and Jo Nova exceeds what they get by an order of magnitude. I believe that their comment censorship is a significant reason for this.

I take heart that the traffic of WUWT and Jo Nova exceeds what they get by an order of magnitude.

Kudos to Jo Nova for keeping the debate open to all commenter…no matter the opinion. KR and SphaericaBob, whom comment here on Jo Nova’s site, will when confronted with the losing side of the argument run and hide behind the skirt of SkS heavily moderated blog. The strength of their argument is function compulsory “consensus” not science.

Or companies reduce production due risk/reward ratio. Or they may choose to relocated to friendlier shores or increase price. All distort the current market all of which will lead to an increase in COL.

How can a company that makes electricity in Australia relocate overseas?

If there is demand for electricity, then there will be electricity produced here, it is just more likely to be gas than coal, or black coal instead of brown coal.

You see Adam Smith, markets follow a simple supply and demand function. Compulsory demand is not demand it’s government imposed burden,i.e. cost. Supply is determined by production and demand. Pollution permits have zero production cost and have no demand, yet they can be both scarce or ubiquitous at the discretion of the manufacture (government).

Of course there will be demand for permits because some companies will want to put greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere!

Supply and demand mate!

If this scheme is a market,then so is protection racket. You better pay me so nothing happens to your business…got it! You better buy these permits so nothing happens to your business…got it!

Yes it is a market because the right to pollute becomes a tradeable commodity.

And yes a protection racket is a market. It is a black market, and a market that is also criminal, but yes it counts as a market of sorts.

If another criminal organisation was willing to offer the same level of protection at a lower cost, you would have genuine competition in the market.

Plant life emits CO2 during night hours and takes in CO2 during daylight hours.

The more CO2 in the atmosphere the sooner the world will return to the Greens pristine utopia.

This is not true. Simply adding more CO2 without also providing more water and nutrients will not make plants grow more effectively. Some plants grow more slowly in higher CO2 environments because they didn’t evolve in those conditions.

Name some of plant families & data source that you use to confirm your statement.

Oh sorry I didn’t realise you weren’t familiar with this basic fact.

Sure, for SOME plants increased CO2 concentration will result in faster growth. But for others, that isn’t he case because they already have a mechanism to increase the CO2 concentration inside of their cells. See, science is much harder than just shouting slogans about CO2 being “plant food”.

…it is extremely difficult to generalise about the overall impact of the fertilisation effect on plant growth. Numerous groups around the world have been conducting experiments in which plots of land are supplied with enhanced CO2, while comparable nearby plots remain at normal levels.

These experiments suggest that higher CO2 levels could boost the yields of non-C4 crops by around 13 per cent.

Limiting factors

However, while experiments on natural ecosystems have also found initial elevations in the rate of plant growth, these have tended to level off within a few years. In most cases this has been found to be the result of some other limiting factor, such as the availability of nitrogen or water.

The regional climate changes that higher CO2 will bring, and their effect on these limiting factors on plant growth, such as water, also have to be taken into account. These indirect effects are likely to have a much larger impact than CO2 fertilisation.

So there you go. There is no simple answer to this question. Higher CO2 will benefit some plants, but not all. It will benefit some plants in some conditions, but not all conditions. The fertilisation effect of CO2 is significant for some plants, but it depends on other conditions which too will be changed by climate change.

In conclusion, there is no simple answer, this is a complex question with many factors involved.

I have asked the Committee Secretary to explain why mine has not been listed. My submission is not confidential. My submission does not express general views on the carbon pricing mechanism. I’m fairly straight on the point about the basis for a carbon tax.

Considering the nature of a number of the submissions included in the 270 listed on the website, I stated I was puzzled why my submission was not listed.

I explained how I essentially presented the case as to why the carbon tax is baseless by referring to:

1. Valid evidence contained in reports authored by some of the most eminent international scientists for which I provided links.
2. Examples of real world observational data that proves the science underpinning the carbon tax is flawed.
3. IPCC AR4 evidence that the human induced annual carbon dioxide emissions (3%) is statistically insignificant and Australia’s 2% of the 3% is statistically irrelevant.
4. Comments by numerous scientists who have been involved with the IPCC (the so called consensus of scientists) who claim the IPCC is wrong about catastrophic man-made global warming due to carbon dioxide emissions.
5. Evidence exposing why the IPCC climate-models are wrong… the carbon tax being based on the model-based predictions of the IPCC.

I wonder how many others put in a submission only to find it has been excluded?

Truthseeker – Jo gets about the same traffic as John Cook, although Mr Cook does have a .com domain. Aussie domains still are backwaters of the internet – with Jo ‘way off to the edge. Jo does suffer because Mr Cook gets a lot of visits as a result of searches. Shows the value of camping on a domain name – which is why I don’t have much time for Unskeptical Science.

Of course there will be demand for permits because some companies will
want to put greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere!

Supply and demand mate!

Only if demand remains constant. When electricity prices “necessarily
skyrocket” demand for the product will drop. You big government types
need to score things dynamically, not statically. Dynamic scoring, like
private industry…like a real market.

Yes it is a market because the right to pollute becomes a
tradeable commodity.

And yes a protection racket is a market. It is a black market, and a
market that is also criminal, but yes it counts as a market of sorts.

If another criminal organisation was willing to offer the same level of
protection at a lower cost, you would have genuine competition in the
market.

WOW! Cap and Trade…Carbon Tax/Permit…what ever you call the scheme,
is equivalent to the protection racket of organized crime! I could not
agree more! A false market based upon coercion, this is government?…or tyranny?

Sure electricity will be produced there, but at what cost…a 1%
increase?

No, it will be a 10% increase for electricity in the first year. Subsequent increases will be much smaller but sure, there will be an impact.

See, the Government is SO devious that it is actually being upfront about this cost increase. They also estimate the cost of gas will increase by 9%, but people tend to spend a lot more each month on electricity than gas, so the over all cost increase of gas will be minor. Perhaps a few dollars a month compared to electricity where it will cost an average household a few dollars a week.

Now the Opposition is trying to fool everyone by proposing that it can magically cut emissions by the same amount by 2020 yet no one will pay higher costs for anything!

Who do you believe? The Government that says there WILL be some cost increases, notably electricity and gas, or the Opposition that says that it can acheive the same policy objective as the Government, but it can do it for free?

So there you go. There is no simple answer to this question. Higher CO2 will benefit some plants, but not all. It will benefit some plants in some conditions, but not all conditions. The fertilisation effect of CO2 is significant for some plants, but it depends on other conditions which too will be changed by climate change.

In conclusion, there is no simple answer, this is a complex question with many factors involved.

There is most definitely a simple answer…plants, all photosynthesizing plant benefit from increase CO2. For CO2 to become toxic to plants the levels need be suffocating to humans.

No, it will be a 10% increase for electricity in the first year. Subsequent increases will be much smaller but sure, there will be an impact.

Ok…assuming these rosy projection are accurate, why will subsequent years increases be smaller…could it be lower production…higher cost to the consumer…what?

See, the Government is SO devious that it is actually being upfront about this cost increase. They also estimate the cost of gas will increase by 9%, but people tend to spend a lot more each month on electricity than gas, so the over all cost increase of gas will be minor. Perhaps a few dollars a month compared to electricity where it will cost an average household a few dollars a week.

Let’s for the moment go way out on a limb and assume the government bureaucrats got it wrong, the cost go up 20% year one. I ask you the same question I pose to my Representative, “Will you resign do to incompetence”. You realize Adam Smith, if government was held to same standard as business, (the real market) the politicians would run out on a rail.

Who do you believe? The Government that says there WILL be some cost increases, notably electricity and gas, or the Opposition that says that it can acheive the same policy objective as the Government, but it can do it for free?

Ummm…I don’t believe either. The policy objectives are based on a canard, so how best to achieve it’s stated goals seem a bit spurious. You may as well be arguing whether a tariff should be placed on toys delivered by Santa or tooth fairy money should taxed at capital gains rate.

How can a company that makes electricity in Australia
relocate overseas?

If there is demand for electricity, then there will be electricity
produced here, it is just more likely to be gas than coal, or black coal
instead of brown coal.

Simple really.

For a start the “company” doesn’t “make” electricity.
The electricity is “made” in a power plant, probably fired by coal in this country.

The “company” INVESTS capital in the business of owning such a power station for the purpose of generating and selling electricity. The company DOES NOT do this out of any altruistic desire to supply cheap electricity.

They do it to make to make a profit for their investors.

Regardless of how much of a demand there is for electricity in OZ, if the company can make a better return on investment by investing funds in owning a power station elsewhere, they will close the power station here, and invest in one elsewhere.

This becomes enormously easy when the govt of the day is actually offering very large cash incentives to the company to close down operations, regardless of actual “demand” for electricity in OZ.

Or the company could take the cash incentives to close down the plant, and invest those funds instead in a wind-farm or a few hundred acres of solar panels.

That way they get the cash incentive to close down the original “derdy polluder” plants, PLUS the cash incentives and tax breaks for investing in “green” energy generation, PLUS the added incentive of a guaranteed return on investment due to enforced price subsidies for any electricity that may, or may not actually end up being generated.

Either way, rank and file Aussies, and Aussies businesses end up with a decreasing total, and increasingly unreliable electricity supply.

Ok…assuming these rosy projection are accurate, why will subsequent years increases be smaller…could it be lower production…higher cost to the consumer…what?

Well have a think about it mate. You go from $0 per tonne of CO2-e to $23 which results in a 10% price increase. The following year the price goes up by 2.5% beyond inflation. Let’s say inflation is 3%, that means the price goes to about $24.25.

If the permit price introduced at $23 caused a 10% increase, what do you think will be caused by a permit price of $24.25? Perhaps an extra 0.5% or so?

The big price jump is the introduction, electricity price rises after that will be much smaller, perhaps a percent or less.

Let’s for the moment go way out on a limb and assume the government bureaucrats got it wrong, the cost go up 20% year one. I ask you the same question I pose to my Representative, “Will you resign do to incompetence”. You realize Adam Smith, if government was held to same standard as business, (the real market) the politicians would run out on a rail.

Well yes, if the Treasury gets it wrong and electricity price rises due to the ETS are double what is predicted then certainly that will be extremely hard for the Government to explain.

Now on another thread I have been engaged in a discussion about the Treasury simply telling the Government what it wants to hear. But do you think this could be the case when if the Treasury is wrong the blame falls on the politicians rather than Treasury?

After all is said and done, one striking fact remains. One side of this issue has been anxious for debate and the other side has been just as anxious to avoid it. There is no excuse in this world that can explain this away. One side wants to engage the other on the merit of their respective positions. The other side hides.

This fact speaks louder and more convincingly than any words could ever do. Watch what people do, not just what they say. The view from that position is very instructive.

Is the “carbon pollution” tax designed to reduce CO2 “pollution” merely by percentage levels therefore omitting any consideration as to what might be an optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere?

What are your thoughts as to what an optimum level might be?

Hi Kevin,

I’m glad I managed to stop you from spamming the forum for just a moment.

The answers to your questions are in the Government’s policy document. I draw your attention to this chart which shows the change in GNP on the left hand side and the change in emissions on the right hand side:http://imageshack.us/f/856/graphu.gif/

Completely wrong. This involves ignoring all of the actual research into this question which shows that it is not a simple answer. Not all plants benefit, not all plants benefit in the same conditions.

Two questions:

1. What concentration of CO2 is toxic to photosynthesizing plants?

2. Name one photosynthesizing plant which does not benefit from increased CO2.

Adam Smith:
September 26th, 2011 at 11:57 am
I said: There is most definitely a simple answer…plants, all photosynthesizing plant benefit from increase CO2. For CO2 to become toxic to plants the levels need be suffocating to humans.

Completely wrong. This involves ignoring all of the actual research into this question which shows that it is not a simple answer. Not all plants benefit, not all plants benefit in the same conditions. Other factors may negate the benefits.
You are presenting a simplistic dogma in the face of contradictory evidence.

What “actual research” would you be referring to? Here is some actual research for you!

The primary effect of the response of plants to rising atmospheric CO2 (Ca) is to increase resource use efficiency. Elevated Ca reduces stomatal conductance and transpiration and improves water use efficiency, and at the same time it stimu- lates higher rates of photosynthesis and increases light-use efficiency. Acclima- tion of photosynthesis during long-term exposure to elevated Ca reduces key en- zymes of the photosynthetic carbon reduction cycle, and this increases nutrient use efficiency. Improved soil–water balance, increased carbon uptake in the shade, greater carbon to nitrogen ratio, and reduced nutrient quality for insect and animal grazers are all possibilities that have been observed in field studies of the effects of elevated Ca. These effects have major consequences for agriculture and native ecosystems in a world of rising atmospheric Ca and climate change.

Free-air CO2 enrichment (FACE) experiments allow study of the effects of elevated [CO2] on plants and ecosystems grown under natural conditions without enclosure. Data from 120 primary, peer-reviewed articles describing physiology and production in the 12 large-scale FACE experiments (475–600 ppm) were collected and summa- rized using meta-analytic techniques. The results confirm some results from previous chamber experiments: light-saturated carbon uptake, diurnal C assimilation, growth and above-ground production increased, while specific leaf area and stomatal conductance decreased in elevated [CO2]. There were differences in FACE. Trees were more responsive than herbaceous species to elevated [CO2]. Grain crop yields increased far less than anticipated from prior enclosure studies. The broad direction of change in photosynthesis and production in elevated [CO2] may be similar in FACE and enclosure studies, but there are major quantitative differences: trees were more responsive than other functional types; C4 species showed little response; and the reduction in plant nitrogen was small and largely accounted for by decreased Rubisco. The results from this review may provide the most plausible estimates of how plants in their native environments and field-grown crops will respond to rising atmospheric [CO2]…

Bottom line, although some plants benefit more than others from more CO2, all plants benefit! Care to provide a peer reviewed paper to dispute that? What are the other “factors” you alluded to would “negate” the benefits?

You are presenting a simplistic dogma in the face of contradictory evidence.

Non sequitur. Your use of the word dogma constitutes a straw man. You never established that the commenter’s statement was, in fact, dogma. And where is the contradictory evidence? BTW, I am glad to see you post, “actual research into this question which shows that it is not a simple answer.” Your grammar is terrible and lacks clarity but you are essentially correct: it is not a simple answer. The debate is not over.

Well, I went digging for any references to previous solar cycle length and climate – the majority of references I could find in support were from E. Friis-Christensen and K. Lassen.

Friis-Christensen has quite a poor reputation for science based upon a W. Soon paper – where half the editorial staff resigned after it’s publication, as they felt the editorial standards were violated by Friis-Christensen. So I don’t know, based upon past behavior, if his work is up to peer-reviewed standards.

It’s noteworthy that his papers on this subject are heavily cited – primarily by authors who strongly disagree, based upon known forcing changes in the last 100 years, also due to basic conservation of energy.

WRT to cosmic ray influences, I found papers like Mironova et al 2011, who found some influence:

“In conclusion, we have presented an empirical evidence for a direct influence of the extreme SEP/GLE event of 20 January 2005 on aerosol parameters in the polar stratosphere (altitudes between 11 and 25 km).”

However:

“We would like also to emphasize that the observed atmospheric effect for this extreme GLE event was barely significant. No clear atmospheric effect was found beyond statistical fluctuations for the weaker SEP event of 17 January 2005, which is a typical SEP event. This implies that only extremely hard-spectrum (high energy) GLE/SEP events can produce a noticeable direct effect on aerosols in the polar low-middle stratosphere.”

As best I can tell from the current literature, GCR’s have a statistically detectable effect – but it’s far too small to be anything but a minor variation. Not enough to drive recent climate changes, and in fact the detected GCR’s are trending in the wrong direction for recent warming.

What “actual research” would you be referring to? Here is some actual research for you!

That’s an interesting article, thank you for the link. Of course rather than quoting the abstract, you may of been better quoting the conclusion, which in part says this:

Whereas the effects of CO2 on these separate physiological processes occur
via independent mechanisms, there are interactions among all three of
them. Acclimation of photosynthesis reduces tissue [N], which may reduce
the demand for energy generated by respiration. Reduction of gs improves
water balance, which delays the onset of midday water stress and extends the
period of most active photosynthesis; reduced ET increases soil water content
and leads to increased N mineralization.

There are problems in moving across scales in the interpretation of processes
on a global scale based upon effects at the molecular level. Yet the reduction
of stomatal conductance, the improvement in the efficiency of photosynthesis,
and the inhibition of the activity of respiratory enzymes are primary
mechanisms by which terrestrial ecosystems will respond to rising
atmospheric carbon dioxide.

What “actual research” would you be referring to? Here is some actual research for you!

That’s an interesting article, thank you for the link. Of course rather than quoting the abstract, you may of been better quoting the conclusion, which in part says this:

Whereas the effects of CO2 on these separate physiological processes occur
via independent mechanisms, there are interactions among all three of
them. Acclimation of photosynthesis reduces tissue [N], which may reduce
the demand for energy generated by respiration. Reduction of gs improves
water balance, which delays the onset of midday water stress and extends the
period of most active photosynthesis; reduced ET increases soil water content
and leads to increased N mineralization.

There are problems in moving across scales in the interpretation of processes
on a global scale based upon effects at the molecular level. Yet the reduction
of stomatal conductance, the improvement in the efficiency of photosynthesis,
and the inhibition of the activity of respiratory enzymes are primary
mechanisms by which terrestrial ecosystems will respond to rising
atmospheric carbon dioxide.

At 301 I posted “Care to provide a peer reviewed paper to dispute that? What are the other “factors” you alluded to would “negate” the benefits?” This was in response to you utterly ridiculous statement “Not all plants benefit, not all plants benefit [from increased CO2] in the same conditions. Other factors may negate the benefits.
You are presenting a simplistic dogma in the face of contradictory evidence”. So, are you going to tell us what factors would negate the benefits of increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere or are you going to stand revealed as some worthless troll who takes up valuable oxygen that someone else could be breathing?

That’s an interesting article, thank you for the link. Of course rather than quoting the abstract, you may of been better quoting the conclusion…

The abstract and the conclusion are in complete agreement. Thank you for making my point! Either provide evidence that deputes the evidence I have provided or concede the point! I am willing to bet $5 to a hole in a donut that you couldn’t even comprehend the conclusions you posted at #302. If you would have understood what the author was communicating you wouldn’t have posted it because it contradicts your statement!

As I said and linked before I used Butler & Johnston 1996, which is specific as Armagh is close physically and climatologically to the Central England Temperature triangle. But I’ve also graphed pSCL against solar cycle average temperature for CET and HadCRUT v3 and you get a trend that is similar in both datasets (at least from 1850, after the volcanic events) even though one is a global dataset and the other fairly local.

My model fits the whole period of the CET rather well from 1755 onward – there is a change in dataset for solar cycle length in 1755, and the Maunder Minimum throws things out – was it two cycles of 16 years each, or 3 of 11 years? Funny solar behaviour – because it is outside the range of Butler & Johnston I chose to stay with 1755-present.

The linear trend line for the CET from 1659-present is 0.24 C/century and so is the model. I did a 2XCO2 estimation once, it came out at 0.69 C/doubling by matching the slope exactly using a goalseek/linest, but I lost that file a few weeks ago when a hard drive expired. Haven’t gotten around to rebuild the file yet.

As to the blow by blow fit, I use a 5 year moving average on the CET and the model, and the correlation of peaks are rather good. In quite a few cases the corresponding peaks and troughs are shifted a few years – I think this is probably an ocean or ENSO related issue. But it seems pretty good. The last few decades fit very well.

The worst departure is in the period 1770-1800 where the model is 1 degree high (although the shape is OK). Not bad, as that was the Dalton with a couple of hefty volcanoes.

Why did I do this? I like data, having played with it for many years and I can use Excel well. I’d read Butler & Johnston and I thought well, the CET is nearby, I wonder what would happen if you used the trend from B&J to calculate what the temperature would be and add a 2XCO2 of 0.6 C on top (Spencer & Braswell 2010 had just come out). I also added the ‘PDO/AMO’ cyclic signal I mentioned as I’d seen that analysis (and I’ve done a lot of statistical fitting to empirical data for past work projects). I also wanted to independently check the low vs high sensitivity hypotheses, and this seemed a way I could do it. Later I tried without the ocean cycles – the calculated 2XCO2 only rises from ~0.69 to ~0.8 C.

What made me just about fall off my chair is the trendlines for the model and the CET were amazingly similar first time I graphed them. That is why I’m as confident as I am – it was a stark alignment with the low sensitivity case, nowhere near the high sensitivity hypothesis.

Since then the whole CERN CLOUD/Svensmark thing has hit the airwaves – this fits pretty well with what Butler & Johnston were saying, and also aspects like the Dalton, and Maunder. It all seems to be coming together.

I’m quite willing to be wrong (I’m a chemist not a climate scientist), but the data especially the last decade of no-warming seems to fit the pSCL correlation remarkably well, and still not fit the high sensitivity hypothesis at all.

I haven’t read Mironova et al 2011 yet, but Dragic et al 2011 does find significance by filtering Forbush events. Quantifying the GCR effect is going to be argued about for a while I think, but the solar cycle length data is there and available for anyone with a spreadsheet and a deathwish like me.

The model equation is given in the comments. I used Mauna Loa pCO2 fitted to an exponential curve assuming 280 ppmv preindustrial level. The ocean oscillations stuff is from here (although it may not be all that important over the long term) and the 2XCO2 is algebraically transposed from the exponential equation…so it becomes TdeltaCO2 = 0.8656LN(pCO2 in ppmv) – 4.8776.

Hope this all works, its the first time I’ve tried to post a pic online.

OK, I’ve had a read of Mironova et al 2011 now. Interesting paper. I like how they can watch 1-2 nm nuclei form over the poles in something like real time. Amazing! Also like the bright spark who put an instrument called Osiris on a satellite called Odin. Mixing mythology like that is liable to get your lab struck by a lightning bolt.

I’m particularly taken by this bit:

A slight increase in [alpha] already started on 20 January, the day of the GLE event, at 15–17 km height everywhere in the Northern polar region and remained for 3–4 days. It has changed on 24–25 January, when the value of [alpha] dramatically decreased to nearly 0 with the lowering of the affected region by a few km. Such low value of [alpha] indicates a sudden increase of the effective aerosol size up to several hundred nm or more (comparable to the wavelength range of the SAGE experiment), i.e. to the CCN size. We note that such a dramatic change is observed only in the region of NW Eurasia.

This is quite interesting to me as one of the things I’ve been into as a chemist is precipitation of titanium oxide hydrate, which is used to make paint. One of the ways to do this (the ‘Blumenfeld‘ process) is to make just the right amount of 1-5 nm seed nuclei, then add them to a calculated amount of saturated solution. The nuclei then grow out to just the right size – paint works by the particles being exactly half the wavelength of light in size, which means they diffract at maximum. This observation looks just like this – where the nuclei formed in a saturated part of the atmosphere over Eurasia, then rapidly grew to micron size because the conditions were just right.

One problem with using a solar event like this is the charged particles follow the field lines of the Earth’s magnetic field down to the poles. This is happening all the time so you might expect the supply of ‘nuclei stuff’ to be depleted. GCR’s on the other hand penetrate from all sides when the Earth’s magnetic field is less compressed by the Sun’s field, so hit on volumes of atmosphere that are still supersaturated and aren’t depleted. Also the findings of anisotropic intensity between the North and South poles and the patchy nature is just what you would expect – aurorae are just like that, you don’t get a perfect ring around the poles – aurorae are ‘lumpy’ when seen from space. And stronger at one pole than at the other.

In conclusion I think they aren’t quite there as they are looking for water in desert – the continually bombarded poles are going to be less saturated than elsewhere. But their evidence of CNN mechanism is very interesting. It is also very interestting that they say:

One can see a strong (up to a factor of 100) apparent increase of AEC since 20–21 January until ca. 27 January in the altitude range 10–22 km … but only in a limited longitudinal range from about 30 deg W to 90 deg E, while in other regions there is no notable effect. The maximum effect is observed 2–4 days 10 after the GLE event. This longitudinal feature is quite stable, ranging from 10 to about 20–22 km in altitude and being present for a week.

This seems to me to be where the GLE particle ‘beam’ has hit the atmosphere. A 100-fold increase is quite a lot. And the nuclei seem to hang around for some time too.

How can a company that makes electricity in Australia relocate overseas?

If there is demand for electricity, then there will be electricity produced here, it is just more likely to be gas than coal, or black coal instead of brown coal.

Wrong question. Energy is a cost to companies, just like labor and COGS. Increase cost, and they move to another land. Increasing your energy costs, when no one else does, puts all your manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage which they can rememdy by moving to a low cost energy country like China or Brazil (2 countries exempt from most of the green proposals).

WRT cosmic rays and climate, there’s a video, Richard Alley, 2009 AGU meeting, where at 42:03 he discusses the 40kY LasChamp anomaly, where the Earth magnetic field essentially went to nil for a millenia. Radiation peaks hugely, but there’s no detectable change in the climate during that period – GCR’s are a minor influence based upon that evidence.

That’s actually a interesting lecture overall – Dr. Alley discusses multiple influences on climate, and oddly enough concludes that CO2 is the biggest control knob on global climate. I would recommend it to anyone – if you disagree with the idea of AGW, it will certainly give you a good outline of the arguments discussed for it.

When a post is simply “removed” (snipped) readers can still see a post was made by somebody. A half-way decent moderator usually even states a reason.

When a post is “disappeared”, however, all trace of the post, including content AND poster’s details are removed, meaning there is no inconvenient evidence of the post itself ever having actually existed.

At the time it was, in fact, quite easy to see where this had been done, as the “hole” left was surrounded by comments referring to the disappeared comments.

However, now that John Cook has been caught out re-writing entire articles months after comments stopped, editing out statements he had made that had been refuted; editing critical comments so they now state entirely different things that he then “rebuts”; even editing comments by his own supporters to fit his re-written “original” article, and worse, there seems little point in trying to chase down evidence of what, in my case, was a minor digression in honesty that occurred over a year ago.

John Cook and his camp have recently been caught out and discredited to a level of dishonesty that they have now been the subject of a lampooning cartoon and several ridiculing articles all over the blogosphere just over the past week.

One can only ponder what they would have to do now to leave somebody like you “unimpressed”.

Sorry I’ll dip out on the Richard Alley video – I’m not a video watcher. If he has a paper out I’d interested though.

I don’t disagree with the theory of AGW, and I think it is happening. But the empirical measurements of climate sensitivity seem to be clustering around the 0.7 C/doubling mark (ditto my bootleg analysis). That means to get over 2 C of warming (which I don’t think would be dangerous – expensive to beach front property owners maybe) you would have to increase pCO2 by 8 times. That is not going to happen. So I agree about AGW I just disagree about CAGW.

(1) If there was a fixed offset due to mis-measurement at the beginning of our most accurate TSI readings (which is quite frankly an interpretation of what has been presented about your data – please correct me if I am wrong) then there should be a decaying exponential response of the climate to that offset.

That’s not showing up in the temperature trends. You might argue that the last 5 years or so are showing less temperature increase than the previous 40, but:

(2) TSI is not the only driver of climate. Aerosols have changed, CO2 has changed (cosmic rays appear not to have for 50 years), ENSO variations have occurred, and the temperature response should be the sum of forcings. There’s accumulating evidence that Asian industrial expansion of the last decade or so account for much of the apparent slowdown in the 00′s, along with the ENSO cycles pushing more heat into the deep ocean (there are multiple papers on that, incidentally).

The observed temperature of the last 100+ years matches what we know of the forcings, and what we know of the forcings does not include any evidence of a TSI offset.

—

The continually increasing temperature over and above the natural forcings (as best we know them, a distinct caveat) can only be matched by anthropogenic contributions. If you have data that shows something else, please publish it so it can be considered. I really really wish climate change was not occurring, but I have not seen anything to convince me otherwise.

The model in http://vixra.org/abs/1108.0032 follows from the physical relationship between radiative forcing and temperature – temperature is the integral of forcing above or below the offset (or equilibrium point).

1. While TSI from Lean is suspect, I have shown the same good fit of temperatures to accumulated sunspots (with a count of 50 as the offset). At least back to 1900 when I think the temperature record becomes spotty. I argue that the model is physically justified, and explains a host of phenomenon: the recent hiatus, 80% of mid-century warming, and recovers exactly the correct lag between TSI and temperature with is one quarter of the solar cycle (integrate a sine to get cosine).

2. The model explains 80% of the rise in temperature, so the rest of the factors are 20%. ENSO is a short periodic.

3. I was quite surprised and pleased when my paper was sent out to review at one of the major journals. As you know, there is no guarantee and it will take time.

It seems quite obvious to me that the claims that TSI (or GRF) could not explain recent warming because they are not increasing or going in the wrong direction are logically flawed. The sun only needs to be above the long term average to warm the earth. The long term average TSI establishes the equilibrium temperature. Simple, really.

The current readings on TSI, while perhaps as accurate as we would like, are quite precise. Given those readings, there certainly has not been a change in TSI over the last 50 years that accounts for current warming. And, as I said before, such an integral offset should show up as a decaying exponential – the rate of change decreasing as the forcing offset reduces. Looking through your vixra PDF, I do not see any reference to the Stephan-Boltzmann equation, the increasing radiation to space with temperature, which is the primary negative feedback on a climate forcing.

That said, I would love to see your paper published and in the arena for discussion. What journal did you submit to, if you don’t mind me asking? And whether you get accepted or not at that particular journal, congratulations on your submission.

The mathematical framework for analysis is contained in http://vixra.org/abs/1108.0020 and the previous vixra manuscript. The framework is an autoregressive equation like T(t)=aT(t-1)+bF where T is the temperature and F is the forcing. Given $a$ seems to be almost one, at least 0.95, it shows the restoration of equilibrium is very slow, and also the amplification via the accumulation process is very high – adequate to provide the range of paleo-temperature variation, and the temp increases since 1950 due to the overall increased TSI during the Grand Solar Maximum.

The trajectory of the autoregression eqn above with a step forcing F will give you the decaying exponential approach to a new equilibrium, as I think you are looking for.

Note this is consistent with a poor response of the TOA to the surface temperature variation, as seems to be the case. I think the SB relationship will come in over paleo-variation ranges of 5C or so, but I haven’t done the analysis to incorporate the SB non-linearity yet. I see water vapor feedback and albedo changes as a way to maintain the a=0.95 relationship, rather than feedbacks, though its probably a parallel representation.

I am not going to discuss the paper as I don’t want to compromise it. Thanks for your interest though.

Not sure what you mean be S-B now. I thought you meant the decaying exponential in response to a step forcing. If so, then (a linearized version of SB) is shown by the arguments showing that global temperature is well-modeled by an AR series. I.e. the tendency to decay from an impulse over all time scales is captured by the dynamics of T(t)=aT(t-1)+bF. However it must be kept in mind that the data suggest the dissipation per time step (1-a) is very small for surface temperatures (0.05-0.1) and even smaller for deep ocean temperatures.

You could also say the decaying exponential is represented by the post-1998 hiatus in temps, but that is not so clear as TSI is varying over those time scales. The good fit to AR is the best argument IMHO.

If by S-B response you mean the climate sensitivity $b$ in the above equation, then it needs to be kept in mind that with $a$ so high, almost one, the system is well fit as a perfect accumulator, i.e. Delta T = bF. In that case the temperature the system keeps increasing while forcing is positive as a certain amount of forcing results in a permanent change to the system, it remembers shocks. This gives the climate sensitivity approximated as a rate (0.06K/W/m2/Yr) and not a K/W relationship.

You have to keep in mind that the troposphere has a low $a$ of 0.5, TLT and UAH global temperatures, and so K/W is ok and it don’t act like an accumulator. But the deeper you go into the system, the more it acts like a perfect accumulator as its harder for heat to get out once its in there.

So you cant really talk about a single S-B response in this picture, though over paleo-timescales the non-linearity of S-B probably kicks in and provides the limits to the interglacial temperature.

I am probably complicating this too much for your question, but its easier to understand when you have the whole picture. Does this answer your question?

Given those readings, there certainly has not been a change in TSI over the last 50 years that accounts for current warming.

Rubbish. TSI hit a peak in the 1990′s since solar cycle 22 and 23 were two of the most active in the last 200 years. Any measure of TSI shows it rising up until about 2000. You are happy with official AR4 data I hope? The issue is the part below the line is 5 times bigger than the iceberg above – you can see it in the pSCL correlation, and the correlation between clouds and solar magnetism. As to TSI itself, it correlates rather well with Arctic temperatures. If CO2 were so important, it wouldn’t.

And yes I know you will probably not like that paper, but if you really want I can find two impeccable consensus datasets on separate graphs which if overlaid would say exactly the same thing.

But, as TSI records/proxies are pretty poor, I’ll agree that there’s room for disagreement. Still, the known (well established/consensus) forcings account for current temperatures without any TSI integration or extremely slow temperature response, which are required for your theory.

Still, the known (well established/consensus) forcings account for current temperatures without any TSI integration or extremely slow temperature response, which are required for your theory.

KR: Both theories explain the phenomena as competing theories should, but my theory predicts additional things (I did not anticipate) such as the exact phase shift of one quarter of the solar cycle between TSI and global temperature. Moreover, consensus forcings also rely on slow temperature responses for longer term changes – but not for solar – and so is internally inconsistent. The differences should be resolved with proper parameterization of the climate models, such as the ocean mixing parameters, which have been shown to be out by 50x by Douglass, and of course correct cloud parameterization.

I’ll await more data, and (hopefully) your upcoming paper.

I will be disappointed if you are leaving because I have made arguments you cannot fault.

KR – no worries. Sounds like you’ve been juggling work, blogs and climate papers again. (Me too, but I don’t have an irate boss chasing me.)

The paper I linked to isn’t behind a paywall but is by Prof Soon…so I was waiting for the explosion. But the data he has comes from other places, he just had the temerity to put both datasets on the one graph.

I think I can explain the above better, so let me try to fix it. The fraction of heat retained at each time step increases with increasing depth in the atmosphere/ocean. This fraction at different heights is easily estimated from the coefficient of an autoregression equation for satellite and surface measurements. It actually decreases linearly with the log of altitude, so its got to do with density.

OK, if AR=0.9 then 90% of a variation in heat content is retained and one tenth is dissipated every time step, which is about characteristic of surface temperature. For a step forcing of 1, temperature must increase to 10 for the energy in and out to be balanced at each time step. This gives an effective amplification of 10 (and also a decay time of 10 years). So long decay times are equivalent to high amplifications.

The role of water vapor (and CO2) is to adjust to maintain the AR structure. That is, the only parameter is a constant fractional heat dissipation, and that explains amplification of solar variations. While there is an S-B relationship at the top-of-atmosphere, the temperature changes down through the system depends on the intensity of the forcing, the duration (as equilibrium takes time) and on the location in the system where the forcing is occurring (as deeper levels have higher intrinsic amplification).

In this picture, the Sun causes most of the variation through slow accumulation of small forcings, CO2 lags temperature (no need for tricky explanations there), post 1950 increases and post 2000 flat temperatures are explained. In contrast, the CO2-driven theory is looking more falsified every month as temperature fails to meet the model expectations.

The prognosis for the future is good, as there will be a net decline in temperature when the sunspot count is below the long term average of 50, which may be the case for the next 30 years. This may balance the small extra CO2 forcing, or not, but we should know in a decade exactly the relative proportions, if not sooner.

Considering that I am here, discussing these matters, and willing to look at evidence on both sides of the debate, I must consider your accusations quite baseless. And for that matter, tasteless.

KR,

Are you then ready to debate Dr. David Evans or someone else publically on the merit of your respective positions?

Yes or no?

I’ll wear your tasteless label if you are in fact, ready to enter into public debate. It’s easy to come here and banter things around but quite another when something actually hangs in the balance — like your reputation. So far you just reject what you look at for the most part. Let’s see what you do up against someone out in public with the result open for the world to see.

As I said before KR deserves a break or two. He has put up some very good papers particularly on the GCR question. His only lapse in good science during the debate with me is to put too much weight upon what the papers’ authors say, and too little on directly examining and interpreting the data. I hope I’ve made a case that the data itself is worth considering – Dr Evans’ 4th diagram is a great example: models have to fit real world data or they are not validated and you must not then use them for expensive policy changes.

We know the pressures on climate scientists are immense right now, and one unfortunate side effect is they will tend to waffle in the conclusions section to cover both bases, or lean a bit to the consensus side even when their data shows otherwise. The CERN CLOUD scandal is an example. Another example is the waffle being enforced upon Dr Pielke jnr over the disaster economics paper by the GRL editors.

As a scientist I would like to point to debaters that underlying peer review’s so called ‘gold standard’ is the ‘golder standard’ which is the actual data. And that data is open to interpretation and debate, and can easily be reinterpreted in the light of other datasets if the science requires it.

I’ll have to say that I don’t like the ‘debate’ formats, as that gives the advantage to the person who talks the fastest, who makes emotive arguments rather than fact-based ones (which require actually looking up the data). A written debate? As I proposed in @124? Sure! I suspect Dr. Pitman would find that reasonable as well. But not a speed-talk debate.

—

David Stockwell @ 327

My apologies, life has not given me the time this deserves.

I’m a bit bemused by the long time constants you state in your paper. Convection/latent heat take a matter of days (at most) to move energy to the tropopause, and the thermal radiation at TOA includes energies from the surface as well as the stratosphere (as it’s a full spectra, including non-GHG wavelengths) – so I have difficulty understanding the multi-decade time frames you seem to be arguing.

In addition, there are two major timeframes for the oceans – the well-mixed layer (top 100 meters or so, mixed by wave/wind action), and the deep ocean (thermohaline circulation). The first is rather fast, the latter a poorly established number, although the ENSO circulation appears to make a significant difference (in terms of variability) on the 5-7 year time frame.

Still, as we have excellent, precise measures of TSI over the last 40 years or so, I don’t see any TSI explanation for the near-linear increase in temperature over that time.

—

Bruce of Newcastle @ 329

Sorry, but I really don’t see a scandal there. The CLOUD results are _extremely_ interesting, but there are folks in the blogosphere overamping any statement that comes out of the group (in both directions). Therefore I don’t find the caution expressed very surprising.

That said, I’m still following everything I can on the subject. There’s an interesting post on RealClimate(yes, yes, I know, many dismiss that source, but some of the posters there do work in the field) describing the potential mechanisms for cloud influence, and look forward to further results from CLOUD experiments.

In regards to Dr. Evans, and his graphs – I’ve run the numbers for standard deviations of temperature anomaly, and they don’t flatten out to a steady value until >40 years – indicating that it requires a significant fraction of that time to establish a trend. A single year’s results are really quite meaningless, and I find Dr. Lindzen’s numbers unconvincing as a result. There’s enough yearly and decadal variance to make anything short of 25-30 years unreliable in terms of establishing average trends. Which is, quite frankly, one of my most serious criticisms of Dr. Evan’s post.

I’m really very disappointed that Dr. Evans has not appeared on this thread to support his initial arguments. Oh well…

—

Gah. Back to trying to meet deadlines… things to write, things to do, people to annoy…

Still, as we have excellent, precise measures of TSI over the last 40 years or so, I don’t see any TSI explanation for the near-linear increase in temperature over that time.

The explanation for post-1950 warming I am offering is similar to simulations such as http://i54.tinypic.com/20htxsj.png, the initial linear increase from an instantaneous doubling of CO2. Only instead of CO2, the forcing is from the well-documented above average TSI over the last 60 years (eg. BoN@322). A step increase in forcing produces a linear increase in the temperature of a heated body. It is ‘incorrect and wrong’ to relate forcing to temperature proportionally in a dynamic system, as in a linear regression. They are properly related by accumulation, as the Energy Balance Model $CdT/dt=F$ describes.

The theory suggests that the decadal timeframes probably emerge from ocean, in the mixed zone over the multi-decadal timefame, and the deep ocean over the longer timeframes. That I use an autoregression coefficient to estimate the fractional dissipation that is not that controversial I think (Schwartz, Douglass).

Based on the data, the fractional dissipation of perturbations in the two components, the mixed zone, and more so the deep ocean, is very low. How? Well if a slug of heat hits the surface in a year, then 0.1 of the temperature increment is dissipated to space in a year, on average. The increase in water vapor over the ocean from the increase in temperature helps to maintain this behavior. A certain proportion is mixed deeper into the ocean and dissipated even slower.

The apparent time scales in the atmosphere are constrained by the long time scale, almost random walk process, at the surface, and the short, almost white noise process at the TOA. There is probably a small proportional component as well (nothing is perfect) of the order of the size of the atmospheric window. The processes you mention fit within this equilibrating system.

Based on spectral plots and autocorrelations of the ice-core data, there is no apparent limit to the accumulation of a small proportion of TSI variations in the deep ocean, until multi-thousand year time frames. This is pretty incredible, and it allows paleo-transitions of temperature from the accumulation of small TSI anomaly of long periods. But I don’t see it as fundamentally inconsistent with the picture presented by Jim Hansen, with very high sensitivity over long equilibrium time frames.

It is contradictory to assert that a step change in CO2 has a long term effect, but a step change in TSI is instantaneous.

What the data show is that temperature changes from the sub-annual to the paleo time-scales can largely explained as a simple accumulation of TSI. Hansen says CO2 drives temperature over longer time scales. This theory says this is not necessary, that accumulation of solar anomaly is an adequate mechanism.

Increasing CO2 may still play a part in maintaining the fractional dissipation (holding in the heat). However, if the putative forcing from CO2 from Hansen was accumulated like TSI, the global temperature would be at the top part of projections, and not below the bottom part as it currently is. So it probably isn’t.

Sorry I perhaps gave the wrong link regarding the CLOUD scandal. What the scandal is is the CERN Director General instructed the CLOUD team not to interpret their own data. That, in science, is a scandal. It is suppression, censorship.

There’s enough yearly and decadal variance to make anything short of 25-30 years unreliable in terms of establishing average trends.

Oh I agree with you. Which is why I looked at the data over 260 years. And I found same climate sensitivity as Prof Lindzen. I wanted to cross check exactly that.

Give yourself a gold star for identifying exactly what even sceptics have never raised with me before about satellite measurement of climate sensitivity, which is the question: ‘is climate sensitivity measured over short time scales the same as climate sensitivity over long time scales?”

And my analysis says yes. But until your comment I had seen no one ask that question except me in the privacy of my own skull.

Some time ago they posted an article on the Uni of Aarhus paper, which gazumped CLOUD, and I found their article disappointing as I could disprove it from their very own data. Their commentary question “Is there a clear 11-year cycle in the cloud cover?” is silly, since the solar cycle is 8.5-13.5 years long, and the very graph they put up has a beautiful correlation of cloudiness peaks with the mimina at the end of solar cycles 21 (1986) and 22 (1995). And an interesting correlation with solar polar magnetic fields too.

So I haven’t wanted to wade into their article on CLOUD for that reason. The RC guys are scientists, they should be able to do better than the May article. But I’ll have a look.

OK, had a look at the RC article from Dr Pierce. Much better. It comes down to the question of rates of nuclei generation and CCN growth, which is the heart of the whole GCR hypothesis and is embodied in his question #3. In that question he does say:

If the nucleation rate is increased due to cosmic rays, there will be more particles competing for a fixed amount of condensible vapors, and each new particle will grow more slowly.

This is not actually correct in particle growth theory because the radius grows at the cube root of the surface area, and the accretion rate is dependent on surface area not radius. This is from my own background in TiO2 pigment – and one reason why the process I cited is robust. So long as you have about the right amount of nuclei the size of the particles will be right within a few percent because the amount of material to get from 99% to 100% of radius is the same as going from 1% to 31%. Basically after a while the diametric differences would go below the error limits. So if you have a lot more nuclei, in the end you get a lot more particles that are only a tiny bit smaller.

However the joker is CCN collision and merging. I can’t opine on his thought that this is large without going to the citations. He doesn’t give any primary data. But the question is valid. On the other hand the very very recent paper by Allen 2011 suggests a small increase in cloud cover has a large negative effect on temperature. Quantifying all this is more than I can do in an hour though.

A plus is he has acknowledged the link between the solar cycle and cloudiness: “a ~6% change in cloud cover (reported in observations of clouds with 11-year solar cycle and after Forbush decreases)”. This is a big improvement over the previous RC article.

So generally good, although I could disagree with technical issues of quantities (but since he’s not been precipitating white stuff for years, I’ll forgive him)…until the last paragraph when he says:

I’ve retained his link. When you go to the link, the graph is titled “Cosmic Rays from Neutron Monitors”.

That, is the problem. How exactly can neutrons be modulated by the Earth’s magnetic field as influenced by the Sun’s magnetic field? He’s measured the wrong thing. GCR’s are steady. Neutrons from the Sun vary. Hence the shape of the graph. But charged GCR particles will vary with the Solar magnetic field, which has been rising in intensity for 100 years or more, that is the Svensmark mechanism. And charged GCR particles will not show up on neutron monitors!

I’m still trying to find the primary source he referred to, but the R. Alley video I referenced in @311 discusses some very interesting evidence against such a correlation between radiation and climate. I understand not liking videos, but the relevant section is only about 20-25 seconds long.

He noted that the paleoclimate data show that significant variation in the amount of cosmic rays not causing climate change.

The following is my poor attempt at including a transcript:

“There’s really good science to be done on this. But we have reason to believe its a fine tuning knob. Its a really interesting hypothesis.

People say the Sun doesn’t change much but the Sun modulates the cosmic rays, the cosmic rays modulate the clouds, the clouds modulate the temperature, so the Sun is amplified hugely. Now the Sun modulates cosmic rays…

…but so does the magnetic field.

And 40,000 years ago the magnetic field basically zeroed out in what we call the LasChamp anomaly for a millenium or so. And when it did, cosmic rays came screaming into the Earth system and you see, in basically all sedimentary records, this peak of cosmic ray produced nuclides.”

[ He displayed a chart with 10^Be and paleotemperatures ]

“We had a BIG cosmic ray signal, and the climate ignores it. And its just about that simple. These cosmic rays didn’t do enough that you can see it.”

Only a continuing change in forcing (total offset) can account for a continuing change in temperature, and a fixed offset in estimated TSI cannot do that. It’s a silly argument on Stockwell’s part, one I’ve seen discussed before (it was a favorite of Ken Lambert’s on SkS, for example), and as I stated in @202 yet another inconsistent argument against the science.

Which of the following do you disagree with?

1. The climate system can take a long time to reach equilibrium from above average forcing (shown by CO2 simulations)
2. Slow equilibrium behavior is initially a continuing change in response to a constant forcing

If you agree with these statements then “Only a continuing change in forcing (total offset) can account for a continuing change in temperature, and a fixed offset in estimated TSI cannot do that.” is wrong.

Moreover, if you agree that:

3. The TSI has been above average over the last 50 years
4. The climate has warmed over the last 50 years

Then the following statement is wrong: “[there is no] TSI explanation for the near-linear increase in temperature over that time.”

Moreover, the recovery of the EXACT phase shift between TSI and global temperature of one quarter of the 11 year solar cycle is proof these two stand in a slow equilibrium, integrating relationship.

Yes, the climate can take time to adjust to a forcing. But how far back is the ‘offset’ in TSI you are describing? We’ve seen multi-decade reversals of temperature trends in the last 100 years (1940′s, 1970′s), indicating that the sign of forcing has changed from positive to negative and back with sufficient response speed to indicate that change. That sign change means that there is no missing offset to positive holding over that time period.

The only explanation for the trend reversals is forcing changes over that period of time – we know what the sun has been doing, and it most definitely has not increased over the last 50 years.

In fact, your statement:

The TSI has been above average over the last 50 years

is most certainly not the case, and I don’t know where you get that – see this link to compare TSI with temperature change. TSI has been declining for the last 35 years or so while temperatures rise. There are also a few references there (OK, 15 or 16) agreeing that TSI changes cannot account for the last 40+ years of warming.

Previous to the last 50-100 years, TSI, vulcanism, and Milankovitch cycles were the major sources of climate change – none of those account for recent warming, and as I understand it, without GHG forcings we would be roughly 0.8C cooler than we are now, on a cooling trend.

Moreover, the recovery of the EXACT phase shift between TSI and global temperature of one quarter of the 11 year solar cycle is proof these two stand in a slow equilibrium, integrating relationship.

Have you run the statistical significance on this correlation? Your graphs did not show what appeared to be that close a relationship (visually, mind you, and the eyecrometer is notoriously bad). I’m also rather amazed you could see a consistent 2.75 year lag in the presence of noise and ENSO variations, not to mention the occasional volcanic interruption. It also seems a bit contradictory to invoke extremely slow climate response (to account for the slow trend) and an extremely fast climate response (for the 1/4 cycle relationship) in the same argument.

Furthermore, a cyclic relationship such as you describe is not a trend, by definition. Trends require a constant imbalance, not a fluctuating +/- one.

There is also a video here discussing the TSI evidence, in particular over the last few years, along with some of fingerprint evidence (cooling stratosphere, warming at night and the poles) that indicate recent warming is not due to solar changes.

It’s a bit overdone, but it does summarize the evidence with some completeness.

The TSI has been above average over the last 50 years
is most certainly not the case, and I don’t know where you get that – see this link to compare TSI with temperature change.

But the figure at the link proves my point! Imagine a line through the mean at about 1365.7W/m2. The TSI lies above this line from 1950. The integration of TSI is the area between the TSI and this line. As TSI is in units of rate of Joules, and temperature is in units of accumulated Joules, the correct physical comparison is between the area of TSI above equilibrium and temperature, not between the TSI and temperature as you are saying.

I have read many of the references listed. Many incorrectly assume a proportional relationship between TSI and temperature by using linear regression. Others like Lockwood are more sophisticated, and attempt to incorporate the response time, but use a moving average finite impulse filter that strongly underestimates the contribution of TSI when it is an infinite response (ie AR), as I have shown here.

Scafetta claims through completely independent means that 60% of the temperature increase is explainable by celestial effects. This would be within my uncertainties, and consistent with the majority of recent warming attributable to the Sun, with a contribution from CO2 with low climate sensitivity, as shown by many empirical studies.

Have you run the statistical significance on this correlation?

Yes. Figure 3 here shows the cross-correlation which is the way to examine phase relationships. The picture is one of a temperature that has been driven upwards by stronger than average TSI in addition to strong solar cycles of 11 years. There is nothing inconsistent about this.

Furthermore, a cyclic relationship such as you describe is not a trend, by definition. Trends require a constant imbalance, not a fluctuating +/- one.

As shown in SkS figure there is an above average TSI, AND a fluctuation. Not too difficult a concept. The phase shift evidence is shown to prove the integration process, not to explain the warming.

I accept that the GCR hypothesis is not yet proven theory status. It is plausible but not sufficiently quantified. That is a gap, and funding for the exploration of that gap is justified – except Dr Kirkby had to fight for years to get even a pittance to test it at CERN because the results are (as we’ve seen) dangerous to the political backers of the high sensitivity hypothesis.

But the correlation of (previous) solar cycle length to global and local temperature is clear as crystal.

Solar cycle length is a solar phenomenon with apparent magnetic effects – equatorial solar magnetism being generally stronger if the previous solar cycle was shorter. And the temperature is higher.

So all that is being argued here is what is the mechanism causing solar activity to produce about half or more of the Earth’s temperature variation at century scale?

Which brings us to CO2. As I have said, when you consider solar cycle length the impact of CO2 as recorded in the temperature is consistent with short time scale measurements of 2XCO2 by satellite. No way is 2XCO2 anywhere near the IPCC’s range of 2.5-4.0 C/doubling. And at 0.7 C/doubling CO2 is for all intents and purposes a harmless fertilizer.

The only paper I have found supporting previous solar cycle length and climate correlation is the singular Friis-Christensen/Lassen 1991. In the intervening 20 years there have been a number of papers, including Benestad 2005, who found:

There have been speculations about an association between the solar cycle length and Earth’s climate, however, the solar cycle length analysis does not follow Earth’s global mean surface temperature.

I find the theory of pSCL very interesting – but I’m not going to subscribe to it without more (and more recent, as the majority of apparent CO2 effects have kicked in over the last 35 years) data.

Aha! I knew something was nagging at me, I think I realize what it is.

Your correlated lag chart (Fig. 3 of your paper) shows a fine correlation to temperature. That should be expected, as TSI absolutely is an influence on global mean temperatures. (Minor nitpick – I cannot find the GISS temperatures on the chart as supplied. Perhaps a better contrasting line style?).

But – an offset from other forcings (such as, for example, CO2) over the cyclic variation will show simply as an offset with the TSI 11 year relationship preserved. In other words – shifting the relationship with an offset, but preserving the time-lag for cyclic influences. Your lag chart is the wrong tool to describe such changes.

As I’ve said with various phrasings before, unless there is a steadily increasing TSI (not cyclic variations, but an increase in the smoothed average TSI over multiple cycles), then the within cycle correlation shows nothing (Fig. 3).

Now, your Fig. 1, if correct (Criticism #2, absolutely no scales on those graphs!!! And hence impossible to judge) is of interest. But as noted, I cannot judge that without some graph labeling, and sourcing of the data. From a review point of view, you have not labeled the graph sufficiently – I think that sub-labels on each graph with axis scaling would help considerably.

So – missing data/graphs: some graph showing TSI changes over time, with correlation to temperature trends over the last 50-200 years, if possible. Without that data, your paper is missing the conclusion. I sincerely hope your reviewers make the same suggestion.

Incidentally: Scafetta has been shot down repeatedly, and is not a strong reference as a result. His ‘cycle matching’ leads to ridiculous (i.e., contradicted by the records) results if you back-cast even 200 years; I would suggest finding other supports.

thanks to you all for providing an entertaining public debate (sorry Roy… this too is public, it is just not showcase public). I echo KR’s comment that this is quite a meaty debate that would be enhanced by input by David Evan at this point.

On an unrelated note- I realise now where I’ve encountered David Stockwell before in the literature – including publications with people I know like Leo Joseph (interesting divergence in climate related papers!)

The only paper I have found supporting previous solar cycle length and climate correlation is the singular Friis-Christensen/Lassen 1991.

Well you’ve not been clicking my links then, as I’ve cited Butler & Johnston 1996 several times on this thread alone. Also I’ve simply graphed the publicly available HadCRUT v3 and CET series (as av annual temperature anomaly over the solar cycle) vs previous solar cycle. And given you a link to the graph. The only compromise I made was the two very short cycles in the early 1800′s that were affected by Tambora and other eruptions I didn’t plot. But I did put up a copy of the official volcanic forcings for all to see – no I’ve not attempted to use that as a correction through Butler & Johnston may have.

Let’s see if I can find some more.

Archibald 2006 (De Bilt, Netherlands, and cites 7 related papers)Archibald 2009 (CET, Portland Maine, Hanover New Hampshire)Laut 2003 (I would agree with him – as my model says, pCO2 is important, and that fits with the departure you see in his Figs 3 & 4)Lansberg & Groveman 1979 (paywalled, but see here for the graph of interest – the top graph is from L&G, the bottom is one of Lassen’s)

That is just a quick search of my files and by Mr Google. I note a few authors like Dr Laut don’t like some of the analysis, but as I said, if you mesh pCO2 (which has rocketed in the last 50 years) plus pSCL then they fit much better. I like considering ocean cycles as well, but even without them a 2XCO2 of ~0.8 C/doubling fits the CET with Butler & Johnston’s regression slope.

I second David’s comment – the discussion has been fun and I’ve read some interesting papers that you pointed to. But mate, you’re really making me work here. I am sure you know how to search papers like anyone can if you really want. My point is:

(a) the correlation is in the raw data, you just have to graph it (this is called ‘replication’)
(b) it appears in both local and global datasets
(c) it is not incorporated in the GCM’s as I understand it
(d) is consistent with the climate sensitivities measured by people like Lindzen & Choi, Spencer & Braswell, Harde etc
(e) maintains this over long time scales, when there were no satellites
(f) kills the CAGW hypothesis stone dead.

As I’ve said with various phrasings before, unless there is a steadily increasing TSI (not cyclic variations, but an increase in the smoothed average TSI over multiple cycles), then the within cycle correlation shows nothing (Fig. 3).

That is simply wrong in respect of TSI but CORRECT for CO2! See Beenstock:

B&R find the derivative of rfCO2 appropriate in a linear model and not rfCO2. This makes a big difference projected forward, as the effects of CO2 INCREASE are short-lived. It must keep increasing exponentially for temperature to increase linearly. If CO2 only increases linearly then temperature is constant (is this whats happening since 1998?).

What KR does not/will not understand is that TSI works at depth, CO2 doesn’t; I especially like KR’s link to Cook’s site and the graph of temp/TSI; TSI can be decreasing but still be ABOVE its average/offset and therefore be causing warming.

KR@343:
The purpose of the correlated lag chart (Fig. 3 of your paper), as I said in 340:

The phase shift evidence is shown to prove the integration process, not to explain the warming.

You are right, cross-correlation has in itself nothing to do with the linear forcings like CO2. I didn’t say it did. It is meant to reveal the underlying mechanism at work that cannot be ignored, and that is accumulation. (strawman)

Lets review your claims:

1.

“The TSI has been above average over the last 50 years” is most certainly not the case, and I don’t know where you get that – see this link to compare TSI with temperature change.

TSI has been declining for the last 35 years or so while temperatures rise.

Do you know the difference between “above average” and “declining”? The accumulative relationship is high school physics. A body warmed by a constant forcing will increase its temperature linearly, at least until equilibrium is approached.

3. A body warmed by a declining forcing will have a reduced rate of warming, and may stop warming as it reaches equilibrium, as the current global temperature has done in the last decade. Far from falsifying, stable temperature behavior with declining but above average TSI is completely consistent with the text-book dynamic behaviour of warmed bodies.

4.

show some graph showing TSI changes over time, with correlation to temperature trends over the last 50-200 years, if possible. Without that data, your paper is missing the conclusion. I sincerely hope your reviewers make the same suggestion.

Forgive the delay in responding. I’m busy these days just as you are, so I know the feeling.

You say

I’ll have to say that I don’t like the ‘debate’ formats, as that gives the advantage to the person who talks the fastest, who makes emotive arguments rather than fact-based ones (which require actually looking up the data). A written debate? As I proposed in @124? Sure! I suspect Dr. Pitman would find that reasonable as well. But not a speed-talk debate.

Now I have to ask, what is the value of written debate that no one will read? Skeptics have been wanting to have this issue debated before the public for years and are quite willing and able to present the matter in terms that the man on the street can understand. But one more time it’s a stark refusal from anyone favorable to the pro global warming position.

No matter who it is, there are all sorts of reasons for refusal. Naomi Oreskes has had a long run of badmouthing Fred Singer. She’s absolutely certain he’s wrong and she’s right. Yet when I asked why not debate Singer her apologists were adamant that it was simply beneath her to debate such a fool. Would you not think that under the circumstances she could easily destroy him in public debate and that would be the end of Fred Singer? But no, she will not. I wonder why.

As I discussed before, the Butler & Johnston 1996 really only considers as single site, which I believe inappropriate when considering a global phenomena.

Archibald 2009 predicts:

A decline in average annual temperature of 2.2° C is here predicted for the mid-latitude regions over Solar Cycle 24.

Excellent – a testable prediction. We’re 3.5 years into solar cycle 24 – no cooling is currently evident, but if it appears that would indeed be good news.

Until it does, though, this extension of Friis-Christensen and Lassen is not terribly convincing to me. Known forcings and their history seem to fully account for current conditions, with the solar forcing delta only 1/5 the CO2 delta over the last 150 years, and negative over the last 35-40.

Laut 2003 is a very interesting paper – which does not seem to support your hypothesis. It is in fact a criticism of some of the published data on solar linkages.

I have analyzed a number of published graphs which have played a major role in these debates and which have been claimed to support solar hypotheses. My analyses show that the apparent strong correlations displayed on these graphs have been obtained by an incorrect handling of the physical data…

My findings do not by any means rule out the existence of important links between solar activity and terrestrial climate. Such links have over the years been demonstrated by many authors. The sole objective of the present analysis is to draw attention to the fact that some of the widely publicized, apparent correlations do not properly reflect the underlying physical data.

—

cohenite @ 346

Your quote of David about Beenstock:

If CO2 only increases linearly then temperature is constant (is this whats happening since 1998?).

Absolutely not. If CO2 increases exponentially then temperature increases linearly. If CO2 increases linearly then temperature increases as a log function. It would not remain constant. You are not demonstrating a great grasp of physics or math at this point.

Readers, I’ll point again to the list of contradictory cohenite hypotheses in @208.

—

David Stockwell @ 347

I’m afraid all three links you gave at the end of your post point to the same document – which only has three (3) figures, making it difficult for me to look at figures up to number seven?

I will apologize for not completely reading your paper in detail earlier – lack of time, and I got a bit hung up on (among other things) the Fig. 1 graphs which are missing any labeling of the axis values. Mea cupla, my fault – I took some time and read through again.

It’s clear from that graph that in the past TSI has correlated well with temperature, with various excursions due to vulcanism and the long term Milankovitch cycles in insolation angle. But it’s equally clear that in the last 50 years or so that TSI/vulcanism relationship has broken down, as other forcings (GHG’s, anyone?) have come into the picture.

Now, as to your paper:

For heat to accumulate 37 over long periods, the heat loss from the ocean must not be strongly temperature dependent.

In other words, extremely long term heat gain/loss in the oceans? We do have some temperature rate data, given the XBT and ARGO data sets. The ocean does indeed respond, particularly the well mixed (top 100 meter) level, which has (off the top of my head) a 10-20 year response time.

Your entire accumulation model requires that output does not respond to system changes, i.e. input and the temperature of the climate. But that’s really not an appropriate statement. TOA radiation to space is driven by atmospheric temperatures (particularly mid/top of troposphere, where H2O/CO2 effectively radiate to space), not benthic ocean temperatures. We have seen a significant rise in atmospheric temperature over the last century, but (extremely important), I do not see any accounting for the Stephan-Boltzmann relationship and it’s effect on atmospheric radiation to space. This is a very powerful negative feedback on energy accumulation, and even a slight raise in temperature should cause a balancing loss of energy at TOA that would cancel out your energy accumulation.

This is critical, David. Given any forcing change the climate should show signs of adjusting, and temperature changes are significant in that regard. Your correlation fails in the 1940′s, especially in terms of trend, when according to data such as the response to 1991 Pinatubo eruption, forcing changes should become evident with a short term transient of a few years and a longer term adjustment of 30+. Hence the climate is not following your ‘accumulative’ model.

——

Again, in both side topics of solar cycle length and TSI accumulation, I feel I’m being asked for two things – to falsify/negate the physics of CO2/greenhouse gas energy retention, and to accept that integrated forcing changes from the sun have an effect 5-10 times higher than we would expect from the energy involved. I’m going to continue to disagree.

Back to the original topic; Dr. Evans, as I’ve stated here, has presented a number of unsupported(able?) statements about climate change – in my opinion they are merely rhetorical statements with no basis in the science.

This has been a very interesting discussion. I really hate to call a halt to my part in it, but I am in an increasing time crunch here. Please feel free to respond to my comments – but I’m going to have to depart the thread.

I sincerely hope that this discussion has been useful for everyone, including readers, regardless of your final opinions – it’s always good to discuss details and reasoning.

KR@349: I developed the accumulation theory in order to explain temperature variation from the paleo to the sub-annual timescales in the simplest possible way. I understand it is a little different, and so may be hard to grasp at first, but the logic become clear after a while. I hope it stands as a useful counterpoint to the current one.

The figure you provide is no different from the last. Only the TSI is overlaid on the temperature. As I say when temperature is compared with the accumulation of forcing, it matches. Its no use pointing comparisons of the TSI and temperature. Different theory. Compare aTSI and temperature and the last 50 years ARE explained well. Like most of your criticisms, they just show you don’t understand the theory I am talking about, and are not salient criticisms. Good try.

The correlation is not as good before 1950. I think that the global temperature measurements might be incorrect, particularly around the ‘bucket’ intake period, and should be better.

The ocean does indeed respond, particularly the well mixed (top 100 meter) level, which has (off the top of my head) a 10-20 year response time.

That is exactly what I said, and I show that both the time period and the amplification can be easily derived from the autocorrelation coefficient of surface temperature. As each annual temperature has a correlation of 0.9 with the next, the fractional loss of heat from year to year is 0.1, so the decay time will be 10 years, and so a step forcing will be amplified x10. If you take a Plank constant of 0.33K/W, then the climate sensitivity of 2xCO2 will be 10*0.33*3.7 or around 10K which is around Hansen equilibrium climate sensitivity. Therefore it is sufficient to account for both paleo-variation and recent warming entirely from TSI variations. High I know, and what is the sensitivity to CO2 forcing? Something other than TSI because we would have already fried if the mechanism was the same for long-wave forcing as short-wave.

I have already showed you the autoregression equation that gives the negative feedback S-B relation you are looking for so its another challenge for you. Using AR to explain the dynamics is just different, so try to appreciate it as a different, but parallel theory.

KR – I agree with Laut that solar cycle length and overall solar effects are not ALL of the forcing. In fact that was what I set out to test for my own examination of the competing claims.

Laut is correct in saying that playing hockey stick games with the pSCL correlation is not on. What is persuasive to me is when he corrected FC&L’s graphs (see Laut’s Figs 3 & 4) it makes it fit better with the pSCL + pCO2 low sensitivity model! Despite both their respective views.

You gotta have both the bacon and the eggs for it to be true bacon & eggs. One or the other just doesn’t make the grade.

As to Archibald’s predictions, you can discuss those with him. I’ll wait until SC 25 starts, then average the solar cycle & see. I note he disagrees with you regarding your statement “no cooling is currently evident, but if it appears that would indeed be good news”. Canada for example may be back to forestry and tar sands with a lot of unemployed farmers for a few decades.

And as for “no cooling” you only need to look at the data to know that is rubbish. And yes we are all emitting CO2 like crazy and the temperature is falling anyway. What do you expect, that we all fry next week just because the IPCC says so? Data is data: read it.

And no pointing to GISS, their Arctic temperatures are pure mythology. One thermometer at the North Pole would cool their entire global series by about 0.2 C. They could put one there any time they liked, it is not hard to drop an automatic station out the back of a Hercules.

Good to see you at the bottom of this thread. I think we’ve been hoping that no one will notice us arguing away down here.

I’ve not looked into detailed corrections for ENSO, but some comments. First there was a very big el Nino in 1998, which is before the range of the graph I linked to. Second there was a pretty big el Nino in 2010 (first half) which tends to pull up the slope, but that is countered by a big la Nina this year. So net result is probably pretty fair.

If you followed the argument about modelling you’ll see I’d linked this up there somewhere: ENSO seems to have a characteristic ~64 year cycle time, as does the PDO and the AMO. More easily seen in PDO, AMO and HadCRUT than in ENSO because they’ve longer time periods. Empirical analysis of the temperature record suggests that cycle is a sine wave with a trough to peak amplitude of about 0.27 C.

This is relevant to your question because the most recent trough was in about 1973, just before satellites first went up, and the peak in about 2005. So the era of the satellites has seen a rise of about 0.27 C grafted onto the temperature record exactly as you may be implying. And so in the 6 years since 2005 it is coming back down again, slowly at first and faster later (as per the shape of a since wave). Which is pretty consistent with that HadCRUT v3 temperature link I put in #351.

So answer is yes. But the correction should be over the whole ~64 years not just this decade. Which is what I did in the bootleg model.

Bruce@353: Speaking of the temperature since the El Nino of 1998, the phase plot since 1996 illustrates the better insight that dynamics gives over linear regression. The trajectory of annual temperature since the big 1998 impulse is a clear decreasing oscillation in a potential well.

The answer to the question “Is temperature decreasing?” with reference to the dynamics is, no, nor is it increasing. Its in an attractor, which is “stable” in a dynamic system. It does appear that the stability is breaking down on the downside. The prognosis when the system leaves the relative stability of the potential well its been in for the last 10 years would be that it will move fairly swiftly to a new attractor at a somewhat lower temperature than the present.

I agree – I see that behaviour all the time in process control and modelling. I’ve avoided getting involved in the discussion on this because I haven’t followed the arguments (except maybe at high level eg S&B 2010 and S&B 2011) and my focus has been primarily long term and not systematic (I started out just wanting a check test of the competing arguments – this whole discussion started out a few threads ago when one guy asked me ironically ‘so where’s YOUR model’, so I gave it). I also betray my parochial background in multivariate stats.

The point I was aiming at was the HadCRUT v3 trend I gave was 2001-present, or about 3 years from the 1998 el Nino peak. So most of the original oscillation was damped. I thought that was what Tristan was alluding to.

There are just two things I’d like to suggest could perhaps be added as fifth and sixth points.

1. The first relates to the cooling effect of carbon dioxide which significantly offsets most, if not all, of the warming effect. Because oxygen and nitrogen cannot radiate, the thermal energy they acquire (some initially by molecular collision with a warmer surface) will eventually be transferred to GHG molecules (by molecular collision or “diffusion”) and then radiated away – roughly half to space and half back to Earth. That energy radiated direct to space thus has a cooling effect. Your colleague John Nicols refers to thermal energy of O2 and N2 passing through the “conduit” of GHG molecules.

2. When energy is radiated back to Earth it can, and will, exit back into the atmosphere anything from seconds to months later. But when it does it can be radiated at different frequencies and also diffused into the atmosphere and then subjected to convection. Hence, it has a second and a third (etc) chance to escape. Also, the missing spectral lines for GHG molecules do not prove that the energy has not, or will not escape via other wavelengths after it warms the land surfaces and oceans.